Sorry, gays, but you were bullshitted just like the rest of the country, and elected a pathological liar for your president. Suck it up.

"Elected a pathological liar for president..."

Well, then, that's two in a row.

Happy pride day to all our fellow citizens in the GLBT family.
Leaving for the parade at 11:30. If you have never been to a Pride Day parade, you should consider catching one. Greatest family, friends, and freaks, gathering of the year.
Best people watching ever.

And BYOB!

Happy Pride to my fellow LGBTQ'ers! Many doors opened, many more to go.

Kick back, grab a rainbow flag and an Appletini!

Make that four in a row.

Why don't we have gambler's pride parades, addict's pride day, promiscuity day and sloth pride month as well? As long as vices are being called virtues, we should make the most of it.

any black person who went through the selma and all the bullshit that we put them through should be offended that this guy is equating their stuggle with what those people were subjected to...

it is not the same thing

True, Afk, and Blacks proved it by voting against gay marriage in California. The commentators are in denial about that.

and many hispanics as well....I might add..

but these folks shouldnt worry...they will soon have some judge somewhere overturn the will of the people for them

I declare July Drunks, Smokers and Addicts Pride Month. We are tired of being second class citizens who pay more in taxes for booze and nicotine while being villified! Rise up and stumble together, my brothers and sisters. Out of the taverns and into the streets!

any black person who went through the selma and all the bullshit that we put them through should be offended that this guy is equating their stuggle with what those people were subjected to...

it is not the same thing

#7 | Posted by afkabl2

Mrs. King thought it was exactly the same thing. So does Julian Bond, John Lewis, and Dolores Huerta, to name a few of the original civil rights leaders.

Certainly Michael Jackson and Urkle would also make the list, Sanantonio.

Certainly Michael Jackson and Urkle would also make the list, Sanantonio.

#12 | Posted by Diablo

Don't look now but your lack of intelligence is showing. Unless, you actually think there is a comparison between a fictional TV nerd and Coretta Scott King.

Sensitive today? Look, I have watched my party put the whole "gay rights" albatross around its neck over the years. Why do you think so many people in red states are turned off to the other, good issues the Democratic Party has? Hint: abortion, gay rights, global warming. These nut causes hurt progress and I for one am sick of people forcing them on everyone.
And the humorless way you replied to my joking post is exactly the kind of snide agressiveness characterizing the gay rights lobby. If homos are doing something that inspires disgust among sane people, they can live with the results. I don't see anything qualifying gays for special protection.

You must be a lonely conservative democrat DIABLO.

I don't see anything qualifying gays for special protection.

#14 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-28 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag

They aren't asking for special protection. They are asking for the same kind of protection in life that you have. If you can't support a party that stands for human freedom--ALL human freedom--you are invited to join another party.

"and sloth pride month as well?"

they want one, but they just can't seem to find the energy to put it together.

You should know, Rich!

.. If homos are doing something that inspires disgust among sane people, they can live with the results. I don't see anything qualifying gays for special protection.
#14 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-28 04:03 PM

Wow, how ignorant. What "special protection" might that be? The rights to fair employment, housing, education and marriage? How many times have you been threatened? How many times have you had to protect yourself from bigots, been denied a job, or kicked out from one? Are you also opposed to protection for Hispanics, Blacks or Asians? What about Christians, Muslim or Jews?
You are disgusting.

I support equal opportunity for any of the so-called minority groups as long as they have the same status as the rest of us. That means they should have marital rights and discrimination rights if they are capable and conscientious.

But my concern comes when some groups have a special protected status which by default is reverse discrimination, and could result in criminal prosecution if said groups are criticized.

now second class is FABULOUS!

What a crock of shit. They have all the same rights I have.

"Wow, how ignorant. What "special protection" might that be? The rights to fair employment, housing, education and marriage? How many times have you been threatened? How many times have you had to protect yourself from bigots, been denied a job, or kicked out from one? Are you also opposed to protection for Hispanics, Blacks or Asians? What about Christians, Muslim or Jews?
You are disgusting."

Well, Redlight, how much alleged "gay bashing" is done by ex-cons and juvenile reformatory alumni met in that gay bar instead of purportedly hetero, intolerant straights? Ever notice how the statistics are coined to make Christians the "obvious" perps?
Talk about prejudice!
So, as to employment: do the Boy Scouts have to employ gay males? My party loses votes when ideologues sue the Boy Scouts for "anti-gay discrimination."
If you have a unigender couple, who the hell cares about "marriage?" Any mother or father will tell you the truth. Marriage is for children, not adults. It is meant to protect them, not the grown-ups. It has nothing to do with whether you want to cover your family chandelier in feces.
"Fair employment" means I have to support gay marriage??? I never see anything in an employee except what profits the firm. That is all. I have had several gay employees and long before the "cause" was popular. I judge by honesty and talent, nothing else.
And how many times have I been hit by bigotry? Many. People, especially the "enlightened," do not like White, male Catholics. I lived in the South many years, my friend. That is a real bigotry. I went to an Ivy League school, and White, male Catholics are pariahs whom the profs routinely exclude from recommendations for grad school. That is a fact. It hits the Evangelical Protestants as well.
So yes, you are a bigot, too.

#23 | Posted by Diablo

*probably preaching to the choir...*

'Gay rights' issues are limited to 'marriage' and that is predominantly it.

As it currently stands, marriage laws on a state-by-state basis are at least somewhat discriminitory toward gay couples. However, that aside, gay discrimination is NOTHING like racial/gender discrimination of decades-past. This is true in terms of degree and intensity PLUS in terms of identity - a gay person can conceal their faggotry, but a black person is shit-out-of-luck, given his obvious 'difference'.

However, the modern left has moved beyond the big, pragmatic picture and has sought to demonize ANY opposition to orthodoxy to a point where a moderate Democrat, such as yourself, is demonized beyond belief.

I don't suggest that the right is any better. However, your conflated views coupled with party-pragmatism make you RIPE for verbal and text assault (and hopefully not more).

Thank you, Jeff. I am a moderate Democrat and I refuse to leave the party. Reagan said he did not leave the Democratic Party, the party left him. I understood that and almost voted for him.
But the aggressive "kill all opponents" strategy of the left wing kooks turned into Lee Atwater and Rove. What goes around comes around. We are feeding the enemy and must stop it.
The first step is to jettison the left wing kooks.
BTW, as I have written here before, whatever a state decides on marriage, gay or otherwise; abortion, divorce, birth control...I don't care except in MY state. Get the feds out of these moral issues.
That's the way the supposedly sacred Constitution has it, whatever the left pretends.

The dick smokers are always whining about something they think they are being deprived of. No one gives hoot about them smoking dicks, just shut the f up about all the "rights" they don't have. Like what? Free to bugger children, their shetland ponies, what? Want to marry their parakeets and feel deprived. No, want to marry their latest butt worship and don't want to accept the religious definiton of marriage? Waaaaah, waaaah, waaaaah!

Act like adults for a change. Take "no" for an answer and get on with your life in the greatest country there ever was, with unlimited freedoms and opportunities for everyone who wants to improve themselves. You make everyone tired of your rants. We can't stand the rants, so pull down your pants, call up your aunts, cause life's full of can'ts......:)

P.S. One of the things I like about Obama is he seems to be trying to get rid of the "all opponents are demons" nonsense. He has been quite a gentleman and it is much needed in BOTH damned parties. Thank you, Mr. President.

One of the things I like about Obama is he seems to be trying to get rid of the "all opponents are demons" nonsense.

#27 | Posted by Diablo

Is that why he keeps blaming the previous administration every time he gets on TV? One of these days he is going to have to take responsibility for the country.

"What a crock of shit. They have all the same rights I have."

You have the right to marry the person of YOUR choice. Not the government's.

Not the same rights at all.

P.S. One of the things I like about Obama is he seems to be trying to get rid of the "all opponents are demons" nonsense.

Quite the contrary.

He has aggressively pursued ANY media outlet with the temerity to question him and/or his agenda.

That he views America's overseas adversaries as more genteel than internal opponents should be telling.

Having said that, his foreign policy actions, thus far, don't register concern with me. In fact, I support his tack regarding Iran. Having said that, he can stuff his flowery, apologetic rhetoric up his ass.

Sniper, as I see it (and not looking for a fight), we are still under the last Bush budget. You know I have strongly criticized Obama's economics, but their effect will not be seen until next year.
And yes, I agree: it will be a disaster. I like most everything about Obama except his economics, abortion position and the fact he refuses to smoke in public while gays do their stuff up front.
Get real, Mr. President! Smokers are human, too. Light up and tell the sturgeon general to go study e-coli under a microscope.

"One of these days he is going to have to take responsibility for the country."

Too rich.

It'll take 30 years for history to pass judgement on Bush, but the jury is already in on the guy who inherited his mess.

.. So yes, you are a bigot, too.
#23 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-28 07:14 PM

You are a lair and a coward. You just don't like "homosexual thoughts" and so classify us as a "lifestyle", our sexuality a "choice". We are your "sinners" and now the "anti-Christs". Your faith has everything to do with what makes your world view so skewed against homosexual people.

We're continually being "legally" discriminated against and you could care less what that means to this nation and it's future prosperity. Constitution aside, by what right do you identify yourself as my superior and I your lesser? Do you have a genetic predisposition for hostility toward "competition"? Do you fear gays marriage will also force you to accept us into "your class"? Do you require that kind of validation for everyone or just those whom you find are "uppity" about their rights?

"You have the right to marry the person of YOUR choice. Not the government's.
"Not the same rights at all."

Danforth, be honest: where was marriage defined as a right? If we must get a license to be married, whatever our religions, it is something defined by the state. Granted, the state has until now assumed it is a hetero union meant to create a family. But no place in the Constitution says marriage is a right.
Oh puh-leeze! The "equal protection" clause is an ill-defined backdoor the left always appeals to in an endless quest to make sure they can marry an inflatable sheep or their gym student.
The fact is the original Constitution left moral decisions up to the states and that is what I want, whether the states decide as I would want.

Speaking of Original civil rights leaders ...I bet you Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan are not for Gay Marriage.Blacks don't have only one spokes person ..but the majority of them nation wide are not for gay marriage ...Domestic Partnership is cool though
peace
Darkstar

.. Smokers are human, too. Light up and tell the sturgeon general to go study e-coli under a microscope.
#31 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-28 07:51 PM

Which has everything to do with your condition - physiological and behavior conditioning to tobacco company products. Your body has been altered, requiring a certain continual cigarette input pending physical and mental discomfort, irritability and possible rage. I don't have a clue what you are smoking, but have you ever considered trying organic or maybe the patch? Weaning off Marlboro might be difficult, but it can be done. I've heard cold turkey is the best method for the determined.

President Obama is not condemning smokers, but with single-payer health care you can finally get access, confirmation and therapies as to what your current condition is. Imo, smoking is more costly than many smokers ever assume.

"You are a lair and a coward. You just don't like "homosexual thoughts" and so classify us as a "lifestyle", our sexuality a "choice". We are your "sinners" and now the "anti-Christs". Your faith has everything to do with what makes your world view so skewed against homosexual people."

Oh Redlight! C'mon! To disagree with you means someone is a liar and coward?? Grow up.
I never wrote I opposed "homosexual thoughts," which appear to be common. I do not oppose thoughts, Red!
The word "lifestyle" is a brand of condom or a section of the Sunday newspaper to me. Otherwise it has no meaning and I do not think I used that word above. If I did, please do not call me a "liar" because I deem it beneath my effort to look.
I did not call homos "sinners" or "anti-Christs" at all. I do believe they are sinning, but so am I and everyone else. No prob with that here.
And yes, my faith is the reason my view is against homosexuality, but not "skewed" against it. My faith tells me what I have as vices is also wrong, and equally wrong. I am "bigoted" against myself? I am, by your logic, "anti-Christ?"
Try, just once, try to think before you post.

"Which has everything to do with your condition - physiological and behavior conditioning to tobacco company products. Your body has been altered, requiring a certain continual cigarette input pending physical and mental discomfort, irritability and possible rage. I don't have a clue what you are smoking, but have you ever considered trying organic or maybe the patch? Weaning off Marlboro might be difficult, but it can be done. I've heard cold turkey is the best method for the determined."

And that is a most appreciated concern, redlight. Thank you. But I like smoking. It is wrong and will likely kill me, but it is my addiction.

"Which has everything to do with your condition - physiological and behavior conditioning to tobacco company products. Your body has been altered, requiring a certain continual cigarette input pending physical and mental discomfort, irritability and possible rage. I don't have a clue what you are smoking, but have you ever considered trying organic or maybe the patch? Weaning off Marlboro might be difficult, but it can be done. I've heard cold turkey is the best method for the determined."

And that is a most appreciated concern, redlight. Thank you. But I like smoking. It is wrong and will likely kill me, but it is my addiction.
#38 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-28 08:08 PM

Death is inevitable, and many of the means to which are all but indistinguishable past a certain threshold to the victim. You could choose to die by smoking complications or perhaps you would get lung cancer anyway? Lifestyle can be a major contributor to health complications, but so much of life is risk mixed reward. Whatever the health costs, I'm certain you really don't appreciate giving $5 or more per pack to a cigarette company who purposefully are causing you to require their fix? And knowing how they have fixed the judicial system in their favor as a smoker I'd feel a little vengeful.

.. And yes, my faith is the reason my view is against homosexuality, but not "skewed" against it. My faith tells me what I have as vices is also wrong, and equally wrong. I am "bigoted" against myself? I am, by your logic, "anti-Christ?"
Try, just once, try to think before you post.
#37 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-28 08:05 PM

We are not "vice-ridden beasts", or whatever else your personal faith requires you to believe homosexual people are to be labeled. Many people of faith loudly proclaim themselves the bastion of morality and that homosexuals are immoral. Our martial happiness means "evil fornication" and "damnable satanic practice". Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds to someone not of your Christ-worshipping faiths?

And we've been called the anti-Christ since long before Mormons were electrocuting their gay children, exorcisms were ever uttered by Catholics and the casual random murders were performed in the streets by our Muslim and Jew brothers.

Please don't bother to compare your theology with anything akin to morality or ethical conduct where homosexuality is concerned. It's a practice solely for you and not intended for myself. Exclusion from your institutions has been a paramount dogma since Ibrahim. You have been conditioned to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Couldn't agree more Redlightrobot.

Blacks don't have only one spokes person ..but the majority of them nation wide are not for gay marriage ...Domestic Partnership is cool though.

Kinda like saying that earlier generations shouldn't have been for full on emancipation but that indentured servitude was a full and just answer to people who wanted to abolish slavery.

All marriage is in a governmental sense is a legally binding contract between two people who agree to share their stuff.

It comes with rights and responsibilities and way to change tax status, that's about it.

Why shouldn't two gay people want to form such contracts?

Why should anyone seek to impede such a contract?

It represents a socially stabilising bond that creates interdependence and support among people that makes govenment assistance a lesser not greater possibility.

Conservative should love gay marriage for that fact alone.

Equal means equal.

Being gay isn't any more of a vice than being heterosexual is.

Be Well.

Legally Binding contract between man and woman ...not "two people" don't make me expose your bigotry against Polygamists that have been around having their rights ignored much longer than gays.
peace
Darkstar

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-28 07:48 PM

You have the right to marry the person of YOUR choice. Not the government's.

When gays can do that, then they qualify to marry.

Waiting. Waiting. Waiting. Oh, it's a biological impossibility. So, quite naturally, neither gays nor lesbians qualify for marriage.

Legally Binding contract between man and woman ...not "two people" don't make me expose your bigotry against Polygamists that have been around having their rights ignored much longer than gays.
peace
Darkstar
#43 | Posted by darkstar74 at 2009-06-28 11:55 PM

ZAPPOW! Awesome!

Johnson, if somebody shoves their dick up your eager ass would you agree that your marriage has been consummated?

Why Moder8, you're an attorney, aren't you. Despite your personal predilections didn't you learn how a marriage is consummated. It's not through anal sodomy.

Oh that's right, your specialty is criminal law as a Public Defender. I suppose that you're so immersed in your specialty, the processing of folks through the criminal justice system, that you have forgotten what coitus involves. Here is a definition for your enlightenment.

"We are not "vice-ridden beasts", or whatever else your personal faith requires you to believe homosexual people are to be labeled. Many people of faith loudly proclaim themselves the bastion of morality and that homosexuals are immoral. Our martial happiness means "evil fornication" and "damnable satanic practice". Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds to someone not of your Christ-worshipping faiths?"

Redlight, please slow down. When did I use such words as you attribute to me?? Do you actually know anything about Catholic belief? It amazes me you write such utter nonsense about us.
We never said married people having sex was evil fornication or damnable satanic practice. Maybe the Puritans did, but my ancestors were too busy trying to keep from being killed by Cromwell to read his campaign literature.
As far as the vice-ridden beasts accusation, leave it at vice-ridden and we agree. Humans are not beasts contra Darwin. Vice-ridden? Yep, you, me and all the rest and I propose a toast to that!

Sexual consummation has nothing to do with making a marriage legal. Such out-dated thinking went out long ago, and was really only applicable to the Catholic Church and Catholics. In their description, the couple must be capable of having offspring for the marriage to be viable. Even using a condom would not be considered a consummation.

If such were the case, old people couldn't marry. Young women with hysterectomies could never marry. Men with vasectomies could never marry. Men with war wounds could never marry.

The myth of consummation before a marriage is legal is just that. It is not a law anyplace in America. There are thousands of marriages that have no sexual relations, and their marriages are perfectly legal.

Buffalo Bob, I really shook my head and laughed at that post. Do you realize most states in our country view non-consummated marriage as grounds for annulment? Those evil Catholics have infiltrated everywhere! Even King Henry, when his spawn failed to appear, declared his marriage null. Strangly, the Catholic Church disagreed with him. Hmmmm....
And really, tell us all this: Where did the Catholic Church ever prohibit elderly, women post-hysterectomy, men with vasectomies and such NOT to marry?? That is utter baloney and indicative of your weak knowledge.
You are a marvel of public self-immolation.

Why Moder8, you're an attorney, aren't you. Despite your personal predilections didn't you learn how a marriage is consummated. It's not through anal sodomy.
Oh that's right, your specialty is criminal law as a Public Defender. I suppose that you're so immersed in your specialty, the processing of folks through the criminal justice system, that you have forgotten what coitus involves. Here is a definition for your enlightenment.
www.medterms.com
Definition of Coitus ..
#47 | Posted by Johnson at 2009-06-29 01:22 AM

Why are you so hung up on coitus to "consummate" marriage? Sexual intercourse is only one aspect of the height and breadth of whatever defines your relationship. Some people are "soulmated", "star-crossed" and others are "destined" or "fated". Can this not apply to any other "consummation"?

Are gays still second-class citizens? Just checking. They get more scholarships then hairlips, don't they?

Do you realize most states in our country view non-consummated marriage as grounds for annulment?

#50 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-29 01:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

That doesn't mean the marriage wasn't legal. Those who do not consummate the marriage for whatever reason listed above, are involved in legal marriages, and consummation has nothing to do with the legality of those marriages.

While lack of consummation is grounds for divorce or anullment, it has nothing to do with the original legality of the marriage.

Where did the Catholic Church ever prohibit elderly, women post-hysterectomy, men with vasectomies and such NOT to marry?? That is utter baloney and indicative of your weak knowledge.
You are a marvel of public self-immolation.

#50 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-06-29 01:45 AM | Reply | Flag

According to you--a marriage isn't legal until consummated. These marriage were never consummated, therefore, never legal according to you. According to Catholics, such marriages are legal, but may be dissolved by the Pope. According to Catholics, consummation has nothing to do with making the marriage legal---it has only to do with the dissolution of the marriage.

"Within the Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the Pope.[1] Additionally, an inability or an intention to refuse to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines[2] a marriage as consummated when the "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh." Thus some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, state that intercourse with contraception does not consummate a marriage."

Dude you're making Buffalo Bob go back to his saved web pages again lol
good research Bob!~
Darkstar

what 2 or more consenting adults do in privacy is none of my business. I take the don't ask, please don't tell, and HELL NO I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY PICTURES...

That said, I think that there are some legal problems with same-sex couples that would have to be addressed... this is with the rights to adopt. Not trying to unduly upset anyone who is homosexual, but there are groups that could USE these changes in the law to their advantage.

Groups such as NAMBLA being one of them. These pedophiles would be allowed to 'marry' and then have the same legal right to be foster parents or to adopt children as any other couple.

As a side note... I have heard about groups like NAMBLA for years, but have never heard of a group that supports women having sex with 8 year old boys or girls, and no organization pushing for the rights of dirty old men to screw 8 year old girls. Not that I would join any such group, just wondered about the absence.

Its like the NAACP is an affirmative action group, and the NAAWP is always called a "racist organization". Just something that strikes me as weird.

One other thought... years ago when I lived in Portland, OR the city allowed gays to register their partners to be covered for insurance. However, straight people couldn't register their partners. Is that fair? Oh, and married couples could only change 1 time a year (unless they adopted or had children), but gays were allowed to change covered partners as often as they wished.

I would guess, if they allowed marriage for gays in OR, then lots of them would loose benefits.

"Granted, the state has until now assumed it is a hetero union meant to create a family. But no place in the Constitution says marriage is a right."

You're right and you're right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say heteros have a right to be married.

"The "equal protection" clause is an ill-defined backdoor the left always appeals to in an endless quest to make sure they can marry an inflatable sheep or their gym student."

First, the idiotic deflections to marrying blowup dolls or farm animals or children is insulting. If you don't understand inanimate objects, or consent, why are we debating? And second...ultimately, where do you want to land on the moral spectrum? Do you want to treat people how you would want to be treated? Or do you want to create a sub-category f humans, a second-class status, a "least of my brethren" situation...?

"The fact is the original Constitution left moral decisions up to the states and that is what I want, whether the states decide as I would want."

Not in regards to equal protection. Marriage is, at it's legal root, a legal contract conferring superseding rights. How can you say this group over here can enter into super-protective legal contracts, but that group, over there, can't.

"However, straight people couldn't register their partners. Is that fair? "
Yes. Straight people can marry to get those rights. Gay people can't.

"Oh, and married couples could only change 1 time a year (unless they adopted or had children), but gays were allowed to change covered partners as often as they wished."

That's not true. Policies like that have minimum times a relationship must have been ongoing (6 months at least), so the concept of changing more than once a year (on average) is stretching it. In addition, it's still one "spouse" at a time, so what's the big deal?

"I would guess, if they allowed marriage for gays in OR, then lots of them would loose benefits."

You may be right. Or it could be a situation where more join than jump.

"Its like the NAACP is an affirmative action group, and the NAAWP is always called a "racist organization". Just something that strikes me as weird."

Did you ever happen to notice only one of those groups suggests the annihilation of the other?

"Are gays still second-class citizens? Just checking."

You're joking, right?

According to the Constitution, CA could ban all marriage contracts, and Utah could require you to be Mormon to own property. That was why we had individual states. Originally, each of the colonies were founded, not for the freedom of religious choice, but for the freedom to have THEIR OWN CHOICE.

If Utah doesn't want gay people, that is their loss. Think of all the drab houses with clashing wallpaper and old 70's style shag carpeting. LOL.

The only reason that this has been such a national issue is that the feds have their fingers in so many places. If the tax code was 10% national tax (or 17%, whatever) why would you worry about the tax implication. If business didn't have to allow spouses to be covered on insurance, then walmart might allow it and target say no... and it would be a private decision. And if states were allowed to be sovereign... then who would care if the next state over had laws you didn't like... you could vote with your feet. Find a place that makes you happy, and job that makes you happy, and leave the bigots to themselves. [And I will admit that a percentage of the people who are opposed to gay marriage do so because they believe homosexuals should be punished or shunned]

As for marriage being a legal contract, so is a domestic partnership agreement. Why is it so important for the pro-gay-rights groups to own the word marriage? If it is all about the contract... then write a damn good contract and be done with it.

But gay and straight are not the same... and the gay agenda crowd want to use law to try and bash people over the head until everyone agree that it is.

That is where you loose people.

1Libertarian

You can't write a contract between yourself and the State. That is where the value of marriage comes in--the rights given by the State. You can't write a contract between yourself and someone else that would adjust the tax code in your favor or allow you to choose someone elses' name.

There is no bashing going on. They just ask to have the same rights as you and to be left alone. How does their lifestyle or marriage rights affect your life? What do you see yourself being bashed with?

"The only reason that (gay rights) has been such a national issue is that the feds have their fingers in so many places."

Huh? You never heard of religion?

"If the tax code was 10% national tax (or 17%, whatever) why would you worry about the tax implication"

First, that's fantasy. Second. you're only addressing the income tax or sales tax part of the 'national tax'. The tax code covers much more than that, including unlimited inter-spousal gifts, pensions, SS survivor's benefits, etc.

"And if states were allowed to be sovereign... then who would care if the next state over had laws you didn't like... you could vote with your feet."

But that cuts both ways. Do you also support allowing states to eliminate the minimum wage?

"As for marriage being a legal contract, so is a domestic partnership agreement. "

Only one gets you the 1,000+ benefits.

"If it is all about the contract... then write a damn good contract and be done with it. "

Sorry...no contract is good enough to give the surviving partner SS benefits, or a guarantee on the partner's health care, or a guarantee of a second-to-die pension option, etc....

"and the gay agenda crowd want to use law to try and bash people over the head until everyone agree that it is."

Can you point to one right they want my wife and I didn't get to take for granted the moment we said "I do"?

"You can't write a contract between yourself and the State"

Not to put too fine a point on it...but yes, you can. Not any contract you want, mind you, but a person could write a contract that the expert at the State thought was a good & fair contract, so as a representative of The State, he signed it.

So you CAN write a contract between yourself and the State.

The State has to be involved. In the context I was speaking of, it was two people trying to write a legal marriage contract. That can't be made legal unless the State is involved. Two individuals can't make such a contract legal.

In order: You can't write a contract between yourself and the State.

Yes, you can. I have had contracts with various state agencies.

You can't write a contract between yourself and someone else that would adjust the tax code in your favor or allow you to choose someone elses' name.

If the state has domestic partnership laws in place, then you can enter into a legal and binding partnership. I believe that states with domestic partnership laws treat them for tax purposes as married. [DC gov't treated them as married... and it caused LOTS of problems because they didn't actually go and do the paperwork... so they were partnered with different people on different years and it made catching tax cheats a real mess]. As for names... sure, that is also possible to have changed. Another legal procedure. [possibly covered in the domestic partnership laws... allowing either or both to change their name at the time they form this union... kind of like 2 companies merging and picking a new name]

They just ask to have the same rights as you and to be left alone. How does their lifestyle or marriage rights affect your life? What do you see yourself being bashed with?

They can have it... everything that a married couple gets, from a legal perspective, is also available to a domestic partnership [note my objection to adopting children... but that's just me I guess], from survivors benefits to being able to use another last name. But 100% matching legal protection isn't enough... they have to be called "marriage". Is like a violet wanting to be called a rose... changing a name does nothing to improve the violet, but it alters the meaning of the word rose. If every fast-food joint and 5-star were all called taco bell... then the name has no meaning.

And the more the gay agenda try and force people to say that a gay relationship is the exact same as a traditional marriage is where they loose people. Myself included. Not all flowers are roses, not all food joints are taco bell, and not all legal partnerships are marriage.

" In the context I was speaking of, it was two people trying to write a legal marriage contract."

Kewl.

"If the state has domestic partnership laws in place, then you can enter into a legal and binding partnership. "

But only on a state level. None of the federal benefits are conferred.

"everything that a married couple gets, from a legal perspective, is also available to a domestic partnership"

Um...no, not even close.

Reread #64 if needed.

"But 100% matching legal protection isn't enough..."

WTF? When was that ever offered?

i don't know why rich gays should be treated any differently than poor gays. gay is gay.

*8[

According to you--a marriage isn't legal until consummated. These marriage were never consummated, therefore, never legal according to you. According to Catholics, such marriages are legal, but may be dissolved by the Pope. According to Catholics, consummation has nothing to do with making the marriage legal---it has only to do with the dissolution of the marriage.

"Within the Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the Pope.[1] Additionally, an inability or an intention to refuse to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines[2] a marriage as consummated when the "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh." Thus some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, state that intercourse with contraception does not consummate a marriage."

Buffalo Bob, read what you posted above. No where does it say people are prohibited from marrying as was claimed. Grounds for annulment means just that: if the partners want it annulled these are valid reasons. That was what I was noting. The claim was made that people with vasectomies or the elderly were not allowed to marry and that is pure bunk.

Happy Pride to my fellow LGBTQ'ers! Many doors opened, many more to go.

Kick back, grab a rainbow flag and an Appletini!

#4 | Posted by DUMPLING1

Yes indeed, bash down those doors and bring out your men that we might know them! Tell them to bring a rainbow flag too, after we break down the door!

Sodom....coming to a city near you!

Well here's hoping in 20 or 30 years are maybe even sooner. We'll be looking back on the gay-rights movement in much the same manner as we reflect on the civil-rights movement.

But if you talk to teenagers and twenty somethings today you'll realize that gay-rights have already won the war. Because the new generations don't hate gay people, don't believe they deserve to be treated differently. And these generations will be the ones setting the policy of the future.

Sodom....coming to a city near you!

#74 | Posted by TheOneBS

Ever back-doored your babe, BS boy? It's real popular among hets.

Marriage is for children, not adults. It is meant to protect them, not the grown-ups.

#23 | Posted by Diablo

Really...

Ever been through a divorce? You don't think either partner needs legal protection if they don't have kids?

Should childless couples not be legally recognized as being "married" because they have no children?

If you are true American, then having gays couples (remember, their are female gay couples too)have the same (not additional or different) legal rights and recognition under the law as hets should be a no brainer. There is no such thing a gay rights. There is such a thing as equal rights.

Gay civil unions do not threaten you or yours. They are a threat only as much as you make them a threat.

Gay civil unions do not dilute your flavor of religion. They dilute your religion insofar as you allow them to dilute your religion. And it must be a mighty weak religion if it cannot hold up to equal legal rights for all (that whole Render Unto Caesar thing).

Keep your religion out of the laws of the US, and the laws of the US will stay out of the free practice of your religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Or perhaps you just don't get that and it's just another piece of paper.

According to Catholics, such marriages are legal,

#73 | Posted by Diablo

Separate your Church from your State. Employ the correct terms.

A civil ceremony of marriage performed by a judge with duly signed and witnessed marriage license has no recognition in the Church. And of course, a ceremony of marriage performed only by the Church has no legal validity unless there is the presence of the State document: the duly signed and witnessed marriage license.

But if you talk to teenagers and twenty somethings today you'll realize that gay-rights have already won the war. Because the new generations don't hate gay people, don't believe they deserve to be treated differently. And these generations will be the ones setting the policy of the future.

#75 | Posted by astrobuckeye

Ain't it great...our children have been brought up with "Heather Has Two Mommies" and now a new generation embraces Sodom! Oh happy day, when our children can celebrate the new paganism.

Sodom...a new generation embraces you!

Because the new generations don't hate gay people, don't believe they deserve to be treated differently.

I don't know many people of any age that hate gays.. that's gay activist BS for the most part.. but don't salute the new generation flag too quickly..

No-one of any age likes being fed a line of crap.. or likes being told that because they disagree with someone they are somehow inferior..

I think the gay marriage push is going to backfire.. from what I read.. some gay groups think the same.

And in the interest of full disclosure.. I am NOT in favor of gay marriage, and I don't think people are born homosexual. Its a chosen behavior.. and many of us know folks that dabble in the lifestyle, and then come out of it.. especially young people.

What is your point, Zot? I never claimed otherwise. The Church recoconizes marriage as a sacrament. Big deal. It also urges the civil law to be obeyed regarding marriage licenses and such. So why are you addressing that post to me?

"Hey Danforth, remember that the marriage is consummated by coition. When gays can do that, then they qualify to marry.
Waiting. Waiting. Waiting."

Stop waiting; you're a hypocrite. You'd never claim a paraplegic couldn't "qualify for marriage". Your objection is bigotry, nothing more.

"I don't think people are born homosexual. Its a chosen behavior."

Do you choose on a daily basis?

I don't think people are born homosexual. Its a chosen behavior..

#80 | Posted by nmg_no

Yep. There are millions out there who choose to be scorned, ridiculed, beat up, spit on, insulted, denied equal treatment, belittled, betrayed, waylaid, and murdered outright.

Yeah, that's sounds like something I'd wanna choose to do for years.

Not!

Maybe they are all congenital sadists and that's why they choose the most obvious easy way to be scorned, ridiculed, beat up, spit on, insulted, denied equal treatment, belittled, betrayed, waylaid, and murdered outright.

Oh... Sadism is probably also a choice.

I don't know many people of any age that hate gays.. that's gay activist BS for the most part.. but don't salute the new generation flag too quickly..
#80 | Posted by nmg_no

Bull polling and voter turn out has shown that the younger generation is much more in support of gay marriage than any other age group. Secondly just based on my interactions with people in my peer group, most of us believe that homosexuality is an in-born trait, not a chosen behavior. Actually the people who are in my age group that think homosexuality is a chosen behavior and that gay marriage is a bad thing are definitely in the minority.

I am tired of the victim angle for anyone, gays included.

"I don't think people are born homosexual. Its a chosen behavior."

If sexual orientation is chosen, then how often do you have to choose not to get a boner when you see a guy walking down the street.

"my faith is the reason my view is against homosexuality"

Strange how someone could take a book that preaches "do unto others", and warns about treating well "the least of my brethren", and come out of it wanting to create a "least of my brethren" subset, and 'do unto them' what these faith folks would never want 'done unto themselves'.

"I am tired of the victim angle for anyone, gays included."

Would you trade your rights for the rights of a gay man? Would you want the majority telling you which rights you can and cannot share? Would you want the state to tell you and your spouse only ONE of you is the legal parent of your child, or whether or not you could have children in the first place? How about the state telling you which people you can marry and which you can't?

If the tables were reversed, you'd be feeling the victim. Second-class is second-class.

Kick back, grab a rainbow flag and an Appletini!

#4 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2009-06-28 02:02 PM

You have the right to marry the person of YOUR choice.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-28 07:48 PM

"I demand my right to enjoy a refreshing Appletini without being considered effeminate."

I think that was guaranteed in Liberace v. DeKuyper.

I think that was guaranteed in Liberace v. DeKuyper.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-29 02:08 PM

I would have married Megan Fox.

#90 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Not too bad. Kinda skinny. Too many (big) tats. Needs to butch and buff up a bit to do the next run of Tomb Raider movies a la Jolie. Would be better than some of the horror stinkers she's due to play in coming up.

"I demand my right to enjoy a refreshing Appletini without being considered effeminate."

I think that was guaranteed in Liberace v. DeKuyper.
#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-29 02:08 PM

Fabulous flag.

In order: You can't write a contract between yourself and the State.

Yes, you can. I have had contracts with various state agencies.

I should have completed the sentence for the idiots out there. Sorry. You can't write a contract between yourself and the State, unless the State agrees to the contract. You can write a contract between yourself and Elvis if you like---it isn't valid unless you can bring back the dead and have Elvis sign it.

You can't write a contract between yourself and someone else that would adjust the tax code in your favor or allow you to choose someone elses' name.

If the state has domestic partnership laws in place, then you can enter into a legal and binding partnership. I believe that states with domestic partnership laws treat them for tax purposes as married. [DC gov't treated them as married... and it caused LOTS of problems because they didn't actually go and do the paperwork... so they were partnered with different people on different years and it made catching tax cheats a real mess].

The State is making those rules---not individuals. Individuals can't write their own tax laws or make a contract with each other as to how their taxes are to be paid. The State does that.

As for names... sure, that is also possible to have changed. Another legal procedure. [possibly covered in the domestic partnership laws... allowing either or both to change their name at the time they form this union... kind of like 2 companies merging and picking a new name]

Newly married couples don't have to do that. A woman doesn't have to pay to have her name changed and go through a court procedure.

They just ask to have the same rights as you and to be left alone.

They can have it... everything that a married couple gets, from a legal perspective, is also available to a domestic partnership [note my objection to adopting children... but that's just me I guess], from survivors benefits to being able to use another last name.

Many gays are raising their own children. I haven't heard of any crime sprees or murders who were raised by gays. Seems like heterosexuals are raising all the murderers and rapists---and gays.

But 100% matching legal protection isn't enough... they have to be called "marriage". Is like a violet wanting to be called a rose... changing a name does nothing to improve the violet, but it alters the meaning of the word rose. If every fast-food joint and 5-star were all called taco bell... then the name has no meaning.

They don't have 100% matching legal protection. Here are some of the things lacking.

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

I prefer a dirty martini with bleu cheese stuffed olives myself.

If you have never been to a Pride Day parade, you should consider catching one. Greatest family, friends, and freaks, gathering of the year.
Best people watching ever.

And BYOB!

#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2009-06-28 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag: idiotFag

Better yet, why not go to your local zoo,grab a nice shaded bench and watch the primates?

Better yet, why not go to your local zoo,grab a nice shaded bench and watch the primates?

#98 | Posted by slicksterWilly

Wouldn't think of intruding on your family reunion.

Happy Gay Pride Day America from the good citizens at the Folsom Street Fair, San Francisco.

""Not Safe For Work""

Most gays are liberal Democrats and, by definition, second class citizens.

"Strange how someone could take a book that preaches "do unto others", and warns about treating well "the least of my brethren", and come out of it wanting to create a "least of my brethren" subset, and 'do unto them' what these faith folks would never want 'done unto themselves'."

Well, Danforth, you have to be one of His brethern to be the least of them, right?
That's when turn the other (facial) cheek comes into play, true. But could it not be Jesus was talking about offences against His own when he said that?
Just a thought.

Well, Danforth, you have to be one of His brethern to be the least of them, right?
That's when turn the other (facial) cheek comes into play, true. But could it not be Jesus was talking about offences against His own when he said that?
Just a thought.

#102 | Posted by Diablo

I believe Jesus considered everyone His brethren, as is aptly illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan.