"This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," Governor Baldacci said.

That deserved to be posted again. Congratulations, ME.

Fill the steins to dear old Maine
Shout 'til the rafters ring

Eat Your hearts out You bigotted Homophobes. bwhahahahahahhaha Too fucking funny hehehehehehhehe

Larry

I have to admit that I didn't expect things like this to happen, especially after prop 8 last year.

Starting to look like a snowball rolling down hill.

Too fucking funny hehehehehehhehe

Larry

???

I guess there's humor hidden in that law somewhere. But I don't think it's polite to laugh at gays, Larry.

Well let me check with someone in a heterosexual marriage......

No their marriage has not been destroyed by this.

"I now pronounce you guys Bangor and Bangee."

When a state passes a bill like this, how do things like inheritance rights, survivor benefits, social security, family plans for health insurance, etc. work?

Does a married gay couple get all of the rights of a married straight couple, or just some of them? Does the federal government (IRS, FICA, etc.) recognize gay marriage if it's from a state where its legal?

Does a married gay couple get all of the rights of a married straight couple, or just some of them? Does the federal government (IRS, FICA, etc.) recognize gay marriage if it's from a state where its legal?

#8 | Posted by katieberry

All of the State rights, none of the Federal.

Thank you Maine. More proof that some States in this Union aren't blinded and crazed with hate.

"But I don't think it's polite to laugh at gays, Larry.

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-06 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag: MR. SENSITIVE

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-06 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag: MR. SENSITIVE

Larry and a doberman under a tree F-U-C-K-I-N-G

(at least my version has some truth to it. LOL)

Posted by goatman at 2009-04-27 12:12 AM |

guess there's humor hidden in that law somewhere. But I don't think it's polite to laugh at gays, Larry.

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-06 01:22 PM

Whatever, Mr.Morals.

Somewhere in Maine there is a discussion between two long term partners...."but you said you'd marry me if it was legal...."
I think there will be some marriages because of this but there will also be some separations because of this.

Itsy, obviously I don't care if you repost my stuff since I am the one who originally put it up, but you do realize that rcade pings you for dragging stuff from the 'dumps' page.

I'm surprised he hasn't banished you for sneaking back after itsme and hillbillydeluxe got banished.

I think there will be some marriages because of this but there will also be some separations because of this.

#15 | Posted by danni

Yeah - ain't it great. We get to go through all the same shit as everybody else!

I'm surprised he hasn't banished you for sneaking back after itsme and hillbillydeluxe got banished.

Try again old man.

Better, it's time to change the channel!

I'm surprised he hasn't banished you for sneaking back after itsme and hillbillydeluxe got banished.

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-06 04:14 PM |

Do you ever work, old man?

Do you ever work, old man?

Of course I do. When something breaks, I stop what I'm doing and go fix it. Usually when I come back I see people like you say, "Oh, goatman ran away like a chicken shit".

LOL

Try again old man.

OK

I'm surprised he hasn't banished you for sneaking back after itsme and hillbillydeluxe got banished.

"When something breaks."

Translation: "No".

Good work if you can get it!

I'm surprised he hasn't banished you for sneaking back after itsme and hillbillydeluxe got banished.

#21 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-06 04:27 PM

All of the spare time on your hands and you STILL don't know who the fuck I am!

Old.

And Senile!

Translation: "No".

Good work if you can get it!

OK. I aim to please. Nope, I never do any work, itsy

Better?

Old.

And Senile!

That's pretty much it. You'd be a little more accurate if you added "incontinent" and "toothless". But two outta four ain't bad for you.

You're Pathetic. Go sell your bullshit somewhere else old man!

Six figures for working "26 weeks out of the year",and you obsess with me!

LOL!

Go to bed old man.

Fix the tampon dispenser in your room!

AMF!

Fix the tampon dispenser in your room!

It works fine. I just ran out of quarters is all.

Six figures for working "26 weeks out of the year",and you obsess with me!

Actually, since the truth escapes you, I'll enlighten you:

YOu came after me first. I am merely replying. Yet you keep coming back.

I think you have the wrong party figured for the obsession. LOL

Good for Maine. Another step in the right direction, another bit of snow added to the snowball. There is no logical reason to disallow gay marriage. None.

PS- Hi, i'm goatman...and I'm here to hijack the thread.

This is the biggest lie--

"Separation of Church and State"

Thank you Hugo Black on the Everson case--just made this up out of thin air.

Thank you FDR for picking this pinhead for the SCOTUS court.

Nothing like picking a guy who was KKK and hated Catholics and anyone else.

And made up Separation of Church and State.

It's not in the Constitution.

"And made up Separation of Church and State."

#32 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-06 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag: Another F in American History.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Murphy, you have the intelligence of a dust bunny.

Hmmmmm - quite a while before Hugo Black.

The U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the phrase "wall of separation" in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. U.S. "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." Since that time, the phrase has become common in American jurisprudence.

prepare for a strong hurricane season.

And made up Separation of Church and State.

It's not in the Constitution.

#32 | Posted by MURPHY

And - just so you know - the words "you have a right to a fair trial" or "you have a right to privacy" aren't in the Constitution either. BUT ... the absence of those specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of those ideas.

Nanc,

That threat won't work on Maine. Ohio has more to fear from hurricanes than Maine does.

Zat,

You are being might harsh on dust bunnies, there.

prepare for a strong hurricane season.

#35 | Posted by nanc

Probably good advice to someone who started out in a leaky boat.

#38 | Posted by axe at 2009-05-06 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag: could be

#33 | Posted by Zatoichi

It was in a letter Zat--not the Constitution.

And if you knew your history--you would know that at the time of the Constitution and well beyond--the states were heavy into supporting religions.

There is no historical foundation for the statement that the Framers or Founders intended to build a 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson.

Right to Privacy was a penumbra--made up out of gases.

"...a 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson."

Long before that.

#41 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-06 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: hasn't figured it out yet

TREATY OF TRIPOLI BITCH!

Saturday, September 20, 2008
Treaty of Tripoli Bitch!
Okay, I hear it too much and I'm fucking tired of it. Listen up and listen good:

The United States of America is not a Christian country and it was not founded upon Christian principles.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

-James Madison

PS- Hi, i'm goatman...and I'm here to hijack the thread.

Hi, I'm Alex, and even though itsme trolled goatman first, I will ignore that and attack goatman for hijacking the thread. Itsme and I have so much in common. Birds of a feather and all that.

Well that, and I'm a dickhead.

Alex

"In a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
- James Madison 1922

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both;
- James Madison 1823

" that a connection between them is injurious to both "

I really like Madison's thinking.

"- James Madison 1922"

Madison speaks from the grave!

"- James Madison 1922"

Madison speaks from the grave!

And he's advising people invest in Microsoft

This is the hour of darkness....

Gays are out to get you, Takitez?

Good news from Maine. New Hampshire next. Then New York.

We are in a new era of SANITY!

Too bad evil rethugs! Gays deserve equal rights

takeitz is correct in his statement. it has nothing to do with "rethugs" or "demoncraps".

#37 | Posted by axe

remember the perfect storm? check the dates.

Nanc jeebus is a figment of your imagination

Can u prove jeebus exists?

Good news from Maine. New Hampshire next. Then New York.

We are in a new era of SANITY!

#52 | Posted by sitdown

NY State Senate Dem leadership is a Protestant minister against gay marriage. Good luck with that. Patterson will never get it passed. He is a powerless baffoon. The Gay agenda will eventually be stopped by the American people who are against it

"I think there will be some marriages because of this but there will also be some separations because of this."

Well, Danni:

That's part of what marriage is for - flushing out which are the good relationships and which are the bad ones.

I predict that in ten years - maybe five - this is all going to be over, with equal marriage rights the law of the land, the Republicans forever deprived of their favorite wedge issue, and Johnson Thorazined to the gills in a lovely padded cell.

Gays already have equal rights. The gay agenda is trying to ram their special rights right up the backsides of America wike a thornbush

Can u prove jeebus exists?

#57 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-05-07 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Jeebus" exists only because you spelled it that way, genius.

And who gives a shit what happens in Baja Nova Scotia anyway? Maybe Paunchovilla.

Meh ...New England is just one big state. Good luck glbt people ...at least it protects churches from your law suits for not marry-in ya. im sure that will be next on your list to attack ...where is my time machine lol
Darkstar

Well that, and I'm a dickhead.

Alex

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-06 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

PS- I don't personally insult people from my fortress of fairness/solitude.

-Goatjerk

And who gives a shit what happens in Baja Nova Scotia anyway? Maybe Paunchovilla.

#62 | Posted by MrFair

Another "fair" minded post from the king of misnomers.

where is my time machine lol
Darkstar

#63 | Posted by darkstar74

Why? Are you hoping to ride it forward into the 21st century?

PS- I don't personally insult people from my fortress of fairness/solitude.

-Goatjerk

As usual, Alex has a selective memory. I said I will not name call in a debate. Is getting a dig in at me really so important that you have to rewrite history, Alex?

*sigh*

#62 | Posted by MrFair

Another "fair" minded post from the king of misnomers.

Jesus christ, sanan -- Texas and Florida get pounded daily here, and a single dig at Nova Scotia (probably first ever on the DR) gets to you?

And who gives a shit what happens in Baja Nova Scotia anyway? Maybe Paunchovilla.

#62 | Posted by MrFair

Another "fair" minded post from the king of misnomers.

#65 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-07 07:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sanan - what's unfair about that statement? Do you really care what happens in Baja Nova Scotia?

AND - isn't it possible I was just looking for an excuse to use the snarky term "Baja Nova Scotia" to describe Maine?

AND - if you can abuse a perfectly good song by Bob Wills & His Texas Playboys, shouldn't it be OK for me to call myself Mr Fair, especially as I have tried a lot harder than most DR people to be fair?

"as I have tried a lot harder than most DR people to be fair?

#69 | Posted by MrFair"

Please note: your self-congratulations may be for a trait (real or imagined) that you have since chosen to abandon.

#70 - No self-congratulation - just stating a fact. But you may be correct that my recent behavior is different. I think lately I have been reacting to the jaw-dropping Sore Winner attitude of the Left. It's too much to take sometimes.

But San, if I can get attacked by someone from both sides of the aisle (as happened numerous times this week) then I think the Mr. Fair moniker isn't too far fetched.

How about you? Are you really a Rogue from San Antonio?

Let's get something out in the open. Does being fair or unbiased or non-partisian, whatever mean that someone cannot be critical ever again of anything?

And what is so unfair about a swipe at Nova Scotia? (it wasn't even that mean of one!) Does a fair person waive his right to ping any geographic location again? Does a fair person have to love every square inch of the earth?

You over-reacted sanan whether you choose to admit it or not.

I lived in San Antonio at the time I registered for the DR.

I think lately I have been reacting to the jaw-dropping Sore Winner attitude of the Left. It's too much to take sometimes.

I have to agree that the left's holier-than-thou, self congratulatory, smug gloating is getting old.

Your party won. You've had your honeymoon. It's time to quit gloating. It's time to go to work and fix things

sanan --

you never told me -- You mentioned Alamo Heights once. Did you ever shop at the Central Market on Broadway?

Yes, a few times. Used to go down to eat at the Picante Grill and stop at the Market sometimes.

I find that I object to gay marriage on nearly every level. They only thing coming out of the gay "birthing" canal is a turd. Marriage has always been the legitimization both (either) legally or spiritually. Strangely it seems to me even that there is no objection to gays living together and in that, living their own lifestyle. The rights of the spouse (one or the other) in the conventional marriage have been established over thousands of years through many secular and religious systems. Now in a very short time, we must change this perception of male/female marriage and adopt the same sex version of the same. This is in part our own fault because we have grown (to a degree) accepting of the gay element of our mutual society. I accept your presence but must vehemently reject granting the sanctity of marriage and the privilege that attaches. I find myself on both sides of this issue. Not as accepting the gay marriage but in rejecting it from both secular and religious views. I don't see extending the rights given a woman as the child rearer (usually) to one not capable of such (at least as far as birthing) and as a Christian find that my beliefs don't allow this type of union. Live together and with some recognition have your gay union but, without the special rights granted to that unique and special individual the child bearing woman.

Live together and with some recognition have your gay union but, without the special rights granted to that unique and special individual the child bearing woman.

#77 | Posted by keith204 at 2009-05-07 08:07 AM

So those beyond child bearing age, or unable to have children should also be precluded from marriage?

May 6, 2009

UPDATE: The New Hampshire House also just sent a gay marriage bill to Gov. John Lynch for signature, voting to agree with a New Hampshire Senate bill.

""as I have tried a lot harder than most DR people to be fair?"

So egocentric that he doesn't see that his perspective is no more "fair" than any one elses.
Virtually everyone thinks their view is "fair" and virtually everyone can be attacked from both the left and the right depending on where on that spectrum they are. The "Mr. Fair" handle doesn't really bother me but I think some find it a bit presumptuous and self-centered, as if you are the sole determiner or what constitutes fairness.

So those beyond child bearing age, or unable to have children should also be precluded from marriage?

#78 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

An interesting point but for me with both sides of the war on one side, it remains a non-issue. It remains, to my beliefs, still a male/female condition.

" I accept your presence but must vehemently reject granting the sanctity of marriage and the privilege that attaches."

If the tables were reversed, would you want someone else to have the power to "vehemently reject" YOUR relationship? I know I wouldn't, so I cannot--in good conscience--tell others they can't have what my wife & I get to take for granted.

"An interesting point but for me with both sides of the war on one side, it remains a non-issue. "

Why is that? You make procreation the most important aspect, then refuse to address infertile or post-reproductive couples. Are you unsure of your actual stance, or are you hiding?

It remains, to my beliefs, still a male/female condition.

#81 | Posted by keith204

But that is mostly a religious construct. And I respect your right within your religious community to choose for yourselves whether or not you wish to perform or support same-sex marriage. But I don't believe that should bear any relationship to the civil and legal aspect under state and federal government.

"Gays already have equal rights"

Only if you're counting on Vernon's calculator. Otherwise, they're over a thousand behind.

Otherwise, they're over a thousand behind.

#85 | Posted by Danforth

1,138, to be precise.

Republicans need to realize the values of their parents were wrong and pigheaded. They are never coming back either. TFB

Rarely in the known history of mankind has the marriage of same sex partners been recognized. The amount of time/instances this had occurred is so little that expressed numerically it isn't high enought to get to insignificant. This is another of those levels I refered to in #81.

#88 | Posted by keith204

So then the argument against changing anything is that "we've never done it that way before"?

"Rarely in the known history of mankind has the marriage of same sex partners been recognized."

So? Before interracial marriage, rarely in the known history of mankind had the marriage of interracial partners been recognized.

Again, if the tables were reversed, would you want others to tell you which rights of theirs you could share?

So egocentric that he doesn't see that his perspective is no more "fair" than any one elses.
Virtually everyone thinks their view is "fair" and virtually everyone can be attacked from both the left and the right depending on where on that spectrum they are. The "Mr. Fair" handle doesn't really bother me but I think some find it a bit presumptuous and self-centered, as if you are the sole determiner or what constitutes fairness.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2009-05-07 08:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Proud to be deconstructed by the brilliant Danni.

I never said I was the sole "determiner" (real word or Danni/Bushism?) of what is fair. But based on what I have observed in the DR AND in the real world, yeah, I think I'm pretty fair. And egocentric? Sure Danni I admit it - but you are pretty familiar with that approach yourself, toots.

Yes, a few times. Used to go down to eat at the Picante Grill and stop at the Market sometimes.

I was their baker from 2001 - early 2005

This maybe a stupid question but, lets say I'm an employer in one of these gay marrige states..... As an employer, am I bound by law to provide benefits to the "spouses"? Do I have to invite them to the company Christmas party and let them dance & hold hands, etc? If so, doesn't seem fair to be forced to do something against a persons personal beliefs.

"This maybe a stupid question but, lets say I'm an employer in one of these gay marrige states..... As an employer, am I bound by law to provide benefits to the "spouses"? Do I have to invite them to the company Christmas party and let them dance & hold hands, etc? If so, doesn't seem fair to be forced to do something against a persons personal beliefs."

The precedent is the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which granted racial minorities full equality under the law. There were many, many Neanderthals who felt it went against their personal beliefs to treat African-Americans like human beings, going so far as to quote Bible verses in support of their position. Their favorite was usually Joshua 9:27:

"And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose."

The cretinous among us took that verse to mean that God had ordained that black mankind was created to serve white mankind, and that since they saw support for that position in the Bible, that they'd get to keep right on doing what they'd been doing in terms of discriminating, harassing and murdering.

They got their asses straightened out soon enough, and the homophobes among us can look forward to similar strictures on how they behave towards others as well. There is many an employer out there who would personally prefer all-Caucasian staff, but who complies with the law and hires other races, knowing that discriminating would have severe repercussions.

#77 | POSTED BY KEITH204
"I accept your presence but must vehemently reject granting the sanctity of marriage and the privilege that attaches."

The thing is, by using the word "sanctity", you have attached a religious element. If a church wants to neither perform nor recognize a same-sex marriage, that's their right, and their business. It's wrong to force a church to perform a ceremony they are religiously opposed to, same as it's wrong to force a pro-life doctor to perform an abortion.

But like you said, "Marriage has always been the legitimization both (either) legally or spiritually." Your wording is a bit unclear to me, but my take on it is that marriage is a legal institution and/OR a spiritual institution. In other words, it's recognized legally by the state, and spiritually by the church. Granted, traditionally, it's both. But it does not have to be. Even you said "both (either)".

Consider when a couple uses a justice of the peace, or whatever it's called. This person is not a member of the clergy, they are only a representative of the state, yet they can legally perform marriages. No church involved. Still legal, still legit.

I don't have a problem with anyone being personally or religiously against gay marriage. That's your opinion. I have a problem when the state bans it for religious reasons.

You said, "as a Christian [I] find that my beliefs don't allow this type of union", but scripture says nothing about recognizing gay marriage. There are numerous injunctions against male homosexuality, but as you said, "I accept your presence".

According to scripture, male homosexuality is wrong, but you've stated your acceptance of it, in spite of saying, "This is in part our own fault because we have grown (to a degree) accepting of the gay element."

You find fault in accepting it, yet accept it nonetheless, however grudgingly. Fair enough, no problem. That seems to me to be a very human thing to do.

I have no problem with you, or anyone, having religious difficulties with homosexuality or gay marriage. But when the state rejects it on the grounds that the Bible says such-and-such, then the line has been crossed.

Murphy, you have the intelligence of a dust bunny.

#33 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-05-06 06:43 PM

Dust bunnies worldwide have taken offense.

I will be watching more closly all of these states who are sanctioning this bullshit.
the ones where elected reps have voted this way
I think it will be a real look into the future of the gay agenda.

What is wrong with civil unions?
I don't like the thought of opening PAndora's Box on marrige.
THe "We are in love, and we have rights, and you can't deny us our rights" argument could be used by everyone. What about the Mormons - how can you deny these people the "right" to get maried? Who cares if it's 1 guy and 9 women? THey are in love, and they have rights, so who are you to deny them their rights? Who cars if marrige has always been 1 man & 1 woman? They are in love .... blah blah blah .....
As an employer, why do I have to play along with someones fantasy? You want to be the "wife" and play happy homemaker - good for you - but why do I, as an employer have to give you medical coverage and benifits just so you can play the "good little wife"?
You want benefits ? GET A JOB!
I'm an Obama Loving Liberal, but I think this is just getting out of hand. What's next? I fear to think of what's next .....

I'm an Obama Loving Liberal, but I think this is just getting out of hand. What's next? I fear to think of what's next .....

#98 | Posted by HLAY2009 at 2009-05-08 08:09 AM

you ARE aware that obama has come out AGAINST gay marriage arent you
HOWEVER I believe what mark styne said yesterday is true.

he says he is against it to help him with moderates in both parties and the far left doesnt worry about his view because he is LYING.

I concur completely.

Yeah Yeah Yeah AFKABL2, we know ..... he lies, he reads from a telepromter, he is secretly gay, secretly muslim, has plans to take everyones guns, wasn't really born in the USA, blah, blah, blah .... yada, yada, yada .....

Man, that shit is really getting old .....
Can't you make up some new shit?

Oh, HEY!! GUESS WHAT?? THAT COMMIE SOB DOESN"T EAT CATSUP ON HIS CHEESEBURGER!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!?!?!??!
How did he fool us all?? My God, NO CATSUP!!!!!
What has this country come to ... no catsup.....

" but why do I, as an employer have to give you medical coverage and benifits just so you can play the "good little wife"?"

You actually don't "give" employees anything, it is part of your employment contract with them and part of their compensation. You don't pay it out of the goodness of your heart but in order to keep your employee working for you. There is no reason a person's sexual orientation should be a factor in that decision.

Danni,
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.
I don't know how to explain this without sounding "homophobic" I guess is the PC word, but try this:

I want to be Mexican - now I can go get a tan, I can change my name, I can learn Spanish, I can move to Mexico, etc, etc, etc. But, at the end of the day, I am no more Mexican than I was the day I was born. I have evey right to "play" Mexican, as long as I'm not hurting anybody, but no one is legally bound to play along.
Same thing with gay marrige - you want to call each other husbands & husbands, or wives & wives, buy rings, have a wedding & reception, go on a Honeymoon, etc, etc - fantastic - hope they have a great time, I hope their relationship lasts, hope they dance together when they're 95 - but they are no more "married" than I am Mexican and no one should be legally bound to play along, especially if it goes against your moral fiber.
Just for the record, I am not an employer, but if I was and that is my family's bread & butter, now I have to choose between my business and my morals. Just doesn't seem right to be forced into something that you feel is "not real".

Hlay you cracked me up! FF for U!

Can u prove jeebus exists?

#57 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-05-07 01:11 AM

Can you prove my blue unicorns don't exist?

Well let me check with someone in a heterosexual marriage......

No their marriage has not been destroyed by this.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2009-05-06 01:25 PM

no I am pretty sure all my marital problems are because of them damn gays muckin things up...!

prepare for a strong hurricane season.

#35 | Posted by nanc

so your God hates gays? is that true nanc? He hates them so much He will kill thousands of innocents by sending in hurricanes. You got a real nice God there... yep! I would just love to hang with Him, a mass murderer, for eternity... ya got one sicko religion there Nanc. My Blue Unicorn wouldn't hurt a flea! ok maybe a flea cause they make His Holy butt itch but He wouldn't hurt any gay people and He certainly would not call up any killer hurricanes to kill thousands of innocents to prove some point!

"I hope their relationship lasts, hope they dance together when they're 95 - but they are no more "married" than I am Mexican..."

So to me "married" means making a public declaration to be in a loving, committed relationship with shared responsibilities, a partnership of two people who agree to support and encourage one another (hopefully) for life.

What does it mean to you?

"but they are no more "married" than I am Mexican..."

Oh, and by the way - the only thing you need to be Mexican is legal recognition by the Government of Mexico saying you are.

Simple, eh?

Sanantoniorogue,
You know what I mean. I LOVE GAY PEOPLE - but I just think some things should not be tampered with. We don't "touch-up" the Mona Lisa, we don't redo Beethovens music, some things should remain unchanged. Like I said in an ealier post, if we open up Pandora's Box on marriage, where will it end?
By your definition of marriage, who's stopping a gay person from doing that right now? At this very moment, if you were gay, not one individual, not one group, agency, etc - NO ONE can stop you from doing EXACTLLY what you define marriage as. If you wanted to, if you were gay, you could take your partner to the top of the Empire State building and scream your love at the top of your lungs and no one could stop you. That's something that bothers me with the whole issue .... it used to be (in my opinion) that freedom was no one could invade your private space and force a belief on you or arrest you or beat you your beliefs. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Gay people can do whatever they want, for however long they want behind closed doors, and no one can stop them. But that doesn't seem to be good enough anymore. Now it seems that people want to legislate their views onto everyone else.

What does marriage mean to me? To me it means beating your head up against a wall TRYING LIKE HELL to make some kind of life with some being from another planet, and when that doesn't work out, I've somehow become the worlds largest asshole and it is going to cost me dearly.

"By your definition of marriage, who's stopping a gay person from doing that right now? At this very moment, if you were gay, not one individual, not one group, agency, etc - NO ONE can stop you from doing EXACTLLY what you define marriage as. If you wanted to, if you were gay, you could take your partner to the top of the Empire State building and scream your love at the top of your lungs and no one could stop you."

But you see, I am gay. And yes, I can do all of those things. However, simply by virtue of you NOT being gay, you can do all of those things AND receive 1,138 rights, privileges, and benefits from the government that I am denied.

So my partner and I stood up in a church, in front of an ordained main-line denomination minister, family and friends and exchanged vows 14 years ago. The only thing missing is that pesky civil/legal recognition. And since we do pay our taxes regularly, I just can't help feel I should be entitled to the same things that you are.

Do you think I'm being discriminitory? Because I really don't feel like I am - but I don't think most bigots think of themselves as bigots either.

I don't want to deny anyone their happiness. But I've got to ask the question, why is the civil / legal recognition so important? If you both know how much you are loved by the other person, why do you need anyone else to validate that for you?

I'm not being a Smart a_ _ with my answer here, but here it goes - YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME THING THAT I AM - if you find a woman ( i'm assuming you're a guy) that will marry you, you can get married, just like me.
If you want to play basketball, you don't show up with a hockey stick and skates - no one is discriminating against you - you just don't have the right equipment for the game that is being played. Same thing with marriage - you have to have the right equipment for the game that is being played.

"But I've got to ask the question, why is the civil / legal recognition so important? If you both know how much you are loved by the other person, why do you need anyone else to validate that for you?"

Well you see, its a matter of simple justice. You get to choose whether or not you marry the person you love. I don't. You get to take advantage of the various rights and privileges afforded to married couples if you choose to do so. I don't. I don't require validation of anything. But I believe I have a right to it, just the same as you do, if I do want it.

"YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME THING THAT I AM - if you find a woman ( i'm assuming you're a guy) that will marry you, you can get married, just like me."

I'm sorry. I just can't respond civilly to that so I will refrain altogether.

"But I've got to ask the question, why is the civil / legal recognition so important? If you both know how much you are loved by the other person, why do you need anyone else to validate that for you?"

There are securities that come with marriage
There are benefits that come with marriage
There are protections that come with marriage
These are things denied to gay couples. It seems like quite a few anti-gay marriage people are viewing these lapses as justice for them choosing a gay lifestyle or something.

I'm sorry. I just can't respond civilly to that so I will refrain altogether.

Actually, I have often felt there should be gay men marrying lesbians all over the place, then, having each of their partners marry the other's partner and be room mates.

Actually, I have often felt there should be gay men marrying lesbians all over the place, then, having each of their partners marry the other's partner and be room mates.

#111 | Posted by kanrei

I hope that was a bid for a FF.

Sanantoniorogue,
I'm not trying to rile you up and I like honesty, even if it hurts - so if you got something to say - let it out - it won't do you any good keeping it in.
We are just having a discussion - nothing you say is going to make me drive my car over a bridge or anything.
I'm sorry - I've never been in your shoes. I'm not saying let's lynch the gays or anything. Help me understand.

No, guerrilla warfare. They claim marriage is sacred, so fine, play by their rules and get all the benefits denied you while also trivializing the very institution they seek to protect.

Help me understand.

#113 | Posted by HLAY2009

I don't know what else I could say that I haven't already.

But just try a little role reversal. Suppose you woke up tomorrow and homosexuals were the majority in the United States.

How would you feel if some of your rights were stripped away, including your right to marry the person you love. But you were told that you actually had that right because you could go out and marry another guy any time you wanted to.

But you were told that you actually had that right because you could go out and marry another guy any time you wanted to.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-08 01:58 PM |

I would follow my #111 and start a dating service that introduced gay couples to lesbian couples for the purposes of cross marrying and then having the gay couple live together and the lesbian couple live together. There technically is no law that says a married couple must live together. One has to think outside the box.

Sanantoniorogue,

I agree with some things that gays are fighting for, I just don't think it should be based on sexual orientation. #1 - You should be able to leave your land and property to whomever you like - period. If I want to leave my worldly goods to George Bush (example for effect only - I'd burn my stuff first) I should be able to. Period.

#2 - Next of kin / hospital rights - Again, should be my descion regardless. My family should not automatically have some kind of special privlidge just because we are related. I should be able to pick whomever I want.

I would not like it if someone told me that I didn't have the right to marry whom I choose.
I wouldn't like it one bit. But I've never had to question that right - it's always just been there.

It's kind of like being black - I'm not a bigot (I hope) but I will NEVER know fully what it means to be black in America - no matter how much I sympathize, I will never 100% understand.
Please accept the same - I will never 100% understand your position - but that doesn't mean that I'm trying to block you every step of the way either.
I can not tell you today at this point that I support gay marriage, but I can tell you that I feel that I have an open mind and I'm not against learning. Please don't take thing personally - they are not meant that way.

Help me understand.

It's called moral evolution.

Presumably yer already past the type of thinking that was once all too prevalent that sed black people are fit to be property.

Also presumably yer past the point where people once assumed all women were property of either their families or their husbands.

Hopefully, you also believe that minorities are entitled to equal rights under the law.

That women also qualify fer those rights.

That interracial marriage is not a sin and should not be illegal.

If you are cool with everything above you should also be cool with gay marriage.

Essentially, it's the next logical step in terms of humanity's moral evolution.

Equal rights means "for everybody" or it doesn't mean much of anything at all.

For too long homophobic religulous types have tried to stop this next step by the use of patently false arguments.

Saying that gay marriage will somehow hurt traditional marriage.

Saying that teh gheys would somehow force them to sanction the events in their own churches, synagogues and mosques.

Some wingnuts even going so far as to argue that if gay marriage is allowed then cross species marriage was obviously next.

Patently false, absurd and more than a little insulting.

Marriage, as an institution, does good by increasing stability within any nation and decreasing over-reliance on governmental assistance.

Straight marriage or gay it makes no difference this truism still holds true. Ergo, all marriage both gay and straight ought to be encouraged by any nation that seeks increased stability.

There is simply no logical argument against it.

It's the right thing to do.

Gratz to Maine.

Be Well.

#102 | POSTED BY HLAY2009

HLAY, the hole in your argument is that one cannot CHOOSE to be Mexican, they're born Mexican. People CHOOSE to be married, they're not naturally born married. If straight couples can choose to be married, why can't gay couples?

"Just doesn't seem right to be forced into something that you feel is not real."

But no one is forcing you to marry another man. No one is forcing gays to marry each other. They're trying to force them not to.

But your argument is that a homosexual marriage is not "real". How so?

I mean, a gay man could marry a woman. It would hardly be the first time. It would be legal, recognized by both church and state, but is that a "real" marriage?

Seems far LESS "real" than two gay men marrying.

What's the difference between a homosexual couple marrying and a heterosexual couple marrying? The gay couple can't have children? Does that make it less of a marriage?

Many heterosexual couples can't have children. Does that make it less of a marriage? Of course not.

If an unmarried couple does have children, is that more of a marriage than a married couple without children? Of course not.

I know you didn't say anything about children legitimizing marriage, but it is a common argument, so I'm using it as an example.

But back to the question: What makes gay marriage not a "real" marriage?

#104 | POSTED BY SANANTONIOROGUE
"So to me "married" means making a public declaration to be in a loving, committed relationship with shared responsibilities, a partnership of two people who agree to support and encourage one another (hopefully) for life."

Bingo.

I can not tell you today at this point that I support gay marriage, but I can tell you that I feel that I have an open mind and I'm not against learning. Please don't take thing personally - they are not meant that way.

#117 | Posted by HLAY2009

I appreciate that HLAY. I think if you "cogitate" on it, you'll begin to see more and more the inherent injustice of the status quo. Once upon a time, not so long ago, separate but equal was accepted as the law of the land. While I believe that civil unions would be a step forward, I will continue to lobby for full equality in marriage rights.

That being said, deep down my preference would be that the government would get completely out of the "marriage" business and let civil unions be the legal term for the relationship between two people as we discussed above. Let "marriage" become the religious blessing bestowed by a faith community at their, and the couple's discretion.

I'm just going to be honest here and I hope I don't step on anyones toes (too hard)

When I think marriage, I think man & woman. That's what pops into my head. I don't know if I could wrap my head around the thought of 2 guys as being "married". You know, you think marriage you think mom & dad, husband / wife.

Sanantoniorogue, I think that is an excellent idea - civil unions for everyone! Honestly, I'm not hung up on 2 guys or 2 women being in love, I have no problem with that at all. For whsatever reason, I'm hung up on the word "Married" to define it. I don't know why.

For whsatever reason, I'm hung up on the word "Married" to define it. I don't know why.

Tradition. Not all of them are ideal in their current forms.

Social change can be an awkward process.

#121 | POSTED BY HLAY2009
"When I think marriage, I think man & woman. That's what pops into my head."

Of course that's what pops into your head. That's what pops into my head as well. Why? Because we're heterosexual. It's our natural thought process, same as with 90% of the population. The other 10% may indeed have a different thought popping into their head, and obviously neither you nor I have a problem with that.

"I don't know if I could wrap my head around the thought of 2 guys as being "married". You know, you think marriage you think mom & dad, husband / wife."

HLAY, I can't even wrap my head around the thought of two men engaged in sex with each other. Doesn't make any sense to me. But, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have to make sense to me.

"For whatever reason, I'm hung up on the word "Married" to define it. I don't know why."

Perhaps the hangup is the word "marriage". I honestly don't know. But I don't believe that word should be the cause of all the hubbub.

I do know that in this country, heterosexual people have the legal right to be married. And I simply cannot come up with a reason why homosexual couples should not be afforded the same right.

And that's what really does it for me. I can't find a reason to keep it illegal, and since we live in (ideally) a free society, I feel that if there is no reason to keep it illegal, then it shouldn't be.

I hear talk of the "sanctity" of marriage, but that's a religious argument, not a legal one. Can't find a LEGAL argument against it.

But it's nice to have an honest civil discussion about it, isn't it?

80% of the libs on this board are probably on their way to Maine to get hitched to their "partners." No wonder the posting on this board has dramatically slowed.

That being said, deep down my preference would be that the government would get completely out of the "marriage" business and let civil unions be the legal term for the relationship between two people as we discussed above. Let "marriage" become the religious blessing bestowed by a faith community at their, and the couple's discretion.

#120 | POSTED BY SANANTONIOROGUE AT 2009-05-08 02:25 PM | REPLY

Fuck that secular bullshit.

#124 | POSTED BY UTASTAFF
"80% of the libs on this board are probably on their way to Maine to get hitched to their "partners." No wonder the posting on this board has dramatically slowed."

Once again, UTA shows all the cleverness and insight of a lump of clay....without any of the usefulness.

Rarely in the known history of mankind has the marriage of same sex partners been recognized. The amount of time/instances this had occurred is so little that expressed numerically it isn't high enought to get to insignificant. This is another of those levels I refered to in #81.
#88 | Posted by keith204 at 2009-05-07 08:44 AM

I do like these gay-related threads since you can't easily defend hate with rational discussion and logic.

So, keith204 this "history" you are referring to, as well as the "turd canal" theory you reference in #81 are the basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry each other? I have some vague questions:

1. Why are gays wanting marriage if they don't reproduce and the majority aren't welcome in any religious setting? Why create more pain for themselves in a world replete with the likes of yourself, Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Fred Phelps and Joe The Plumber? Are they self-loathing trouble-makers, lashing out blindly at religious society? What could be the real reason?

2. Are homosexuals coprophiliacs? It might appear to some that in your world view the only homosexual gratification is anal penetration.. Something clean, God-fearing straight people don't/won't do. Is that what you mean?

3. "Is our children learning?"

LOL, RLR...
"Coprophiliac"

......that's a $50 fine for that.
No 780 SAT words allowed, k?

Still.....what a great word.....ah, the Greeks....

'Still.....what a great word.....ah, the Greeks....'

#128 | Posted by TheTom at 2009-05-08 10:44 PM

Μολὼν λάβε