He needs to be replaced by an activist judge. Everyone knows every Constitution says marriage is for a man and a woman. He just hasn't read the whole thing.

Bob,

It is in the fine print, on the back. Right next to the "Made in China" stamp.

Actually it is good to see the judicial system putting a stop to the policies of hate and bigotry of the right.

JimmyWallback says, "Actually it is good to see the judicial system putting a stop to the policies of hate and bigotry of the right."

Yes, of course, and everyone can see that you applaud restrictions of speech -- after all, that is the socialist way. Indeed, The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) was in lock-step with that very same thing/action, and assigned a special unit to conduct purges against those they wanted to deny their speech. They called them Schutzstaffel (SS) and found that the hateful and hate-filled Jew, gypsie and other undesirables were just like the "right" to them -- someone to stamp out using any means possible ...

... pansies of the Leftist/Democratics prefer the courts and their radicals in congress to do their dirty work against the rightwing/neocon/warmongers, and can't be bothered to sully their hands carrying batons, but they can support denying those of such evil, or in the ghetto, the right to keep their weapons ...

No Taddy,

We expect the courts to assess the Constitutionality of the laws passed in the United States.

The Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land.

Of course you are your right wing compatriots will gladly allow the violation of the Constitution in order to promote YOUR social agenda.

Maybe you could look into why the founders created a government of three co-equal branches.

But keep on promoting the policies of hate and bigotry, they will be your parties undoing.

Oh God I swear Taddy Boy is delusional to the max. I would seriously hate to have Taddy Boy as My Father. Lordy have mercy. That would so dearly suck.

Larry

BTW, Jimmy, the supreme court cannot dictate what words I can or cannot use. The laws they interpret cannot do so, either, and although they attempt to accomplish that end.

They can, as they do, provide consequences for the use of free speech when that speech supports or promotes an illegal action; e.g., endangering the public by falsely claiming there to be a fire, and which could harm them as a result, or inciting a riot or attack on some person or place.

What happens with that, though, is the busybody murmurers try and take it to some hyperbolic extreme and exaggerate the meaning all out of proportion to the law ... and end up claiming that this word, or that word is "illegal" and can't be used ...

While the Hiphoppers lend the lie to that assertion by using all of them and calling for "they b'tches to get whupped and the pigs killed" ... and without being noticably "right" ... or even taken to trial for their hate crimes ...

Hypocrites!

"Yes, of course, and everyone can see that you applaud restrictions of speech -- after all, that is the socialist way."

Oh, this is precious...

I can't wait for the explanation...how exactly did this ruling violate free speech rights?!? It seems to me that your position is the one that violates freedom and restricts the rights of "undesireables". What a way to flip things upside down you have.

Ummm...Tad?


How is this a speech issue?

Taddy,

I agree that the Constitution cannot regulate the words you use.

Just how does that relate to laws that discriminate against a group of individuals on the basis of sexual orientation?

Your contention is that a law that promotes bigotry and hate toward homosexuals is protected as free speech? That IS a huge stretch.

""So far as this court can tell (the law) operates only to harm same-sex couples and their children""

But...that was the intent of the amendment. It was an expression of hate. Is hate unconstitutional???

""They called them Schutzstaffel (SS) and found that the hateful and hate-filled Jew, gypsie and other undesirables were just like the "right" to them -- someone to stamp out using any means possible ...""

The hate monger forgot to mention that they started with the homosexuals.

Someone wonders, "... how exactly did this ruling violate free speech rights?!?"

I was talking to another person about the point they made about "hate" and the "right". I mentioned that judges cannot dictate the words used, as the judges have tried to "decide" in other instances, and as they "decide" in this one and stating some "right" that not even heterosexuals have: a right to marriage
.
I reasoned my dislike and lack of "faith" in such decisions, not marriage specifically, but in general

"It seems to me that your position is the one that violates freedom and restricts the rights of "undesireables". What a way to flip things upside down you have."

I restrict nobodies freedom to have whatever partnership they want to have. However, I will not provide funds to support homosexual marriage for several reasons:

1) It is unnatural (save arguments about animals because any male of any species will prefer the female over any pretense of procreation they make with a member of their own sex)

2) It is a genetic dead-end

3) It will result in homosexuals attempting to gain SS and medicare benefits which are now reserved to mothers who stay home to raise the children they bear.

4) I won't support or encourage behavior I consider immoral and a perversion of life, and which has been an ages old partnership with nature -- God if you will.

How's that?

Gay rights advocates won a major victory Thursday when a Polk County, Iowa, District Judge ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the Iowa Constitution.

I doubt that this could be called a "major" victory given that it is only a ruling a the district court level which effects only Polk County. The DA will no doubt receive a stay of the ruling pending an appeal to the State Supreme Court. It will likely be overturned on appeal.

Eithr way, you can almost bet that there will now be a resolution on the 2007 or 2008 Iowa ballot that explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It will likely pass, as it has in almost every other state that has asked voters to decide such matters.

"This court has yet to hear any convincing argument as to how excluding same-sex couples from getting married promotes responsible reproduction in general or by different-sex couples in particular. So far as this court can tell (the law) operates only to harm same-sex couples and their children,"

* * * *
Idiot judge. So now, all one has to do to justify a ban on any kind of marriage is to demonstrate that that it "promotes responsible reproduction"? That would rule out marriages between the elderly, or where one of the partners is terminally ill. Not to mention that, since gay couples aren't able to reproduce in the first place, he shouldn't have mentioned it at all--the speciousness of the ruling itself makes it simple to overturn on appeal. What a moron.
The judge should have just struck down the law without comment, if that was his intention.

I won't support or encourage behavior I consider immoral and a perversion of life, and which has been an ages old partnership with nature

Both liberals and conservatives are true believers in the right of the government to legislate morality. It is only the definition of "morality" that is different.

So far as this court can tell (the law) operates only to harm same-sex couples and their children," said the ruling from Judge Robert Hanson.

Guess what the numbnuts GOP platform will contain (again, again, again)? Ho Ho Ho !

Not to mention that, since gay couples aren't able to reproduce in the first place, he shouldn't have mentioned it at all

This is patently untrue. Gay couples are just as capable of reproduction as any other couple. They just can't do so with each other.

Since there are many straight couples who adopt, conceive out of wedlock, conceive through artificial insemination, or who are in "open relationships" and conceive that way, this is not a reason to deny the rights of same-sex couples to wed if they so choose.

Danni says, "The hate monger forgot to mention that they started with the homosexuals."

No one would take the bait when I mentioned it, before, Danni. Thanks for your response...

They started with all "undesirables", Danni. They used the words and actions of those targets, to promote a pogrom against them -- as the Left is doing to the Right, now in this very day and age.

Everything about the "Right" is undesirable! Just look at these threads and the very subject they present to your view, to get you in-step with the pogrom! Go to Kos or any other Leftist/Democratic blog and observe the same marching orders!

Then do a quick peek at Drudge Report and Freerepublic to contrast the difference ...

The hate and vitriol is coming out of "your" ears, Danni, but "you" can't see it because "your" eyes are so full of hate for Americas neo-undesirable:

The evil NEOCON you all rant on about constantly!

Like the good goosestepping party member you all are ...

Tad,

I've been banned a few times from Freep for espousing an opinion outside of their majority.

Seeing as yo are still here, even theough you speak out loudly against the views in the majority here tells me that your opinion of the left's "hatred" is far from accurate.

Hey Tad, the leftist Gestapo is coming to get you. A concentration camp is in your future.
You tool.

Obama, Clinton and Edwards are furious with this decision...

I will not provide funds to support homosexual marriage for several reasons:

boohoo. I'm providing funds for the Iraq war. I'm providing funds for wackjob lobbyists to edit EPA reports. I'm providing funds for "enhanced interrogation."

You want to talk morality and providing funds? Gay marriage is way down my list of priorities, not to mention you haven't even shown how this decision would cost you one economic dime.

Maybe I'll write a check and send it to Polk County, Iowa to help offset the "cost" of gay marriage - whatever that means.

Does anyone know the name or number of the Iowa law?
I'd like to read the text, but so far I can't find it.

Danni says, "Hey Tad, the leftist Gestapo is coming to get you. A concentration camp is in your future. You tool."

Whoa! I'm sure that is in the cards, Danni.

Why, last time a Clinton was in the WH, they burned some rightwing conspiracy plotters to death, along with 23 of their children. If they can do that with your support and favor -- they can set-up camps immediately she takes office!!!

One more step forward.

and once again, the will of the people doesnt mean a damned thing.
and further proof that we do not live in a democracy where majority rules.

5) Jeff Gannon turned me down and I'm still not over it.


-Tadowe

Since there are many straight couples who adopt, conceive out of wedlock, conceive through artificial insemination, or who are in "open relationships" and conceive that way, this is not a reason to deny the rights of same-sex couples to wed if they so choose.

Ultimately what needs to be decided is if there is a compelling state interest in promoting traditional marriages (between one man and one woman) over any other relationship.

I think the common understanding of "marriage" is that it is a union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God and the Community. So even a "civil marriage" made by the state, has this connection to being blessed by a higher authority then the Government.

I believe that is a major reason why, even though all legal benefits might be equal, many homosexuals and their supporters find "civil unions" unnacceptable and are instead trying to redefine the term "marriage" in this country.

and further proof that we do not live in a democracy where majority rules.

The Constitution makes that pretty clear.

""and once again, the will of the people doesnt mean a damned thing.
and further proof that we do not live in a democracy where majority rules.""

Decent people my ass. Decent people don't pass laws just to discriminate against people who are different from them. Haters do. Haters are not decent people regardless if they are a majority or not. Thank God there are constitutional constraints on the will of the angry mob.

boohoo. I'm providing funds for the Iraq war. I'm providing funds for wackjob lobbyists to edit EPA reports. I'm providing funds for "enhanced interrogation."

it sucks when you're money doesn't go where you think it should go, doesn't it?

doesn't it? *snicker*

""I think the common understanding of "marriage" is that it is a union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God and the Community.""

Blessed by God???
Oh please.

and further proof that we do not live in a democracy where majority rules.

There's damn good reason for that BL2. Majority rule isn't always the best course of action.

If Texas becomes majority hispanic, and they vote to kick out all the white people, will you leave?
After all, that would be the will of the democratic majority, right?

This is patently untrue. Gay couples are just as capable of reproduction as any other couple. They just can't do so with each other.

Posted by RevDarko

* * * *

LMAO. Okay.

4) I won't support or encourage behavior I consider immoral and a perversion of life

Nobody else cares about what you consider immoral or perverse, and we'd thank you to do the same.

See I don't see how liberals can claim things like this:


One more step forward.

Posted by __b__


And then still support Obama/Clinton/Edwards (B, I don't know if you specifically do, its just your comment seems to be shared by a lot on the left).

The reason I say that is because during the "Gay Debate" a few weeks ago, the three top DNC candidates all said that being gay is not a choice, that you are born that way, but then went on to say that gays shouldn't be able to marry. How is that not biggotry against gays? They are born that way, they can't help what they are, but they shouldn't be afforded the sames rights and priviledges as straight Americans? How is that any different from saying Blacks shouldn't be allowed to get married?

So how can liberals claim to be so against Gay marriage bans and such, but then support 3 open and outright biggots?

-they burned some rightwing conspiracy plotters to death, along with 23 of their children

Tadly promotes conspiracy myth, as is his wont.

He still believes that the voices of the Davidians as recorded by the FBI and played in open court in their civil trial, which allowed everyone to hear their shouted orders as they brought out the kerosene stored for just this purpose and committed murder/suicide ala Jim Jones.

Tad is convinced that Mel Blanc did the voice-over for the FBI.

LMAO. Okay.

What is incorrect about this statement.

*?

righties have a constitutional right to hate lefties and gays, if you don't like that then buzz off, on the other hand lefties don't hate righties, they just think they are stupid. they have a constitutional right to laugh at ignorance.

So even a "civil marriage" made by the state, has this connection to being blessed by a higher authority then the Government.

Since when do we live in a theocracy?

Rob points out an unfortunate problem that liberal Democrats face. They are not in favor of discrimination but the reality of America is such that they don't feel they can be elected if they favor gay marriage. As on just about everything, good old Dennis Kucinich is not bound by such fears and says what he means. Come Labor DAy when the Mexican trucks begin to roll across America his statement that he would throw NAFTA right in the garbage may start resonating with the American people and the fact that he isn't afraid to say he favors gay marriage is just a bonus.
Why elect someone who is afraid to say exactly what they believe???

Haters do. Haters are not decent people regardless if they are a majority or not. Thank God there are constitutional constraints on the will of the angry mob.

Danni, but you are a "hater", you are part of the "angry mob"

As Marianne Williamson said ""I had just as many missiles in my head as Ronald Reagan had in his. I thought it was wrong for him to judge communists, but I thought it was okay for me to judge him. Why? Because I was right, of course! I spent years as an angry left-winger before I realized that an angry generation can't bring peace." ~ Marianne Williamson (A Return To Love, 1992)

So how can liberals claim to be so against Gay marriage bans and such, but then support 3 open and outright biggots?

Rob,
The 3 support civil unions, so they do support equal rights. But you are right, they are playing politics, tap dancing around the marriage name. I don't like it either, but we live in a 51-49 country.

But here's the thing Rob, in the end it doesn't matter if Obama won't come right out and support gay marriages. He doesn't have to. That's the amazing thing about the Constitution. The President isn't a King or a Dictator. Even if he wanted to ban gay marriage, he can't. The ban is unconstitutional, it keeps being struck down.

And as soon as the neanderthals admit this and stop trying, the politicians won't have to tap dance.
But I really do think it's a stretch to say the 3 want gay marriage banned. They're being politicians and playing both sides against the middle. They're refusing to openly support it, but they haven't said they would ban it.

The 3 support civil unions, so they do support equal rights

Seperate but equal rights...

How do libs feel about that when it comes to Blacks and Whites?

Rob,

In this case, I would consider it supporting the lesser of two evils. Either we can admit homosexuals need to have equal rights (albeit seperate but equal at the moment) or not.

Given the above choice, I'd rather they at least have the same rights, even if it's called something different. It's a smaller step toward true equality from there.

But I really do think it's a stretch to say the 3 want gay marriage banned

Not that they want it banned, that's not the issue.

The issue is they support the idea that being gay is a matter of genetics, like skin pigmentation, free hanging earlobes or hitchhikers thumb, but at the same time support discrimination against gays because of this gene.

That is biggotry...

""I spent years as an angry left-winger before I realized that an angry generation can't bring peace."

Er....an angry generation got us out of Vietnam.
An angry generation got civil rights for African Americans. Angry people have been responsible for just about every advance of human rights.

Marianne Willamson is a nut. One of those "spiritual" people. Nothing has ever been changed with anger. Anger is a very necessary emotion. Anger does not necessarily equal hate.

"I believe that is a major reason why, even though all legal benefits might be equal, many homosexuals and their supporters find "civil unions" unnacceptable and are instead trying to redefine the term "marriage" in this country."


The legal benefits are NOT, i repeat NOT equal!!!! A gay couple cannot own a house together where each contributes a different amount of $$ to the property (or any asset for that matter) without triggering GIFT TAXES. They can't buy a car for one another. They can't share assets unless they pay equal amounts for it!! There are NUMEROUS rights that people don't think of that makes a gay household pretty much impossible to run.



And Rob--i am pretty disappointed in the viewpoints expressed by the dem prez candidates. However, i believe the smart way to get the RIGHTS is to go for unions. Words mean nothing, rights are paramount. No one should give a shit what they call it so long as the rights are equal. If the word "Marriage" has religious implications, fine, let the religions dictate that particular form of partnership---but the government should provide an equal mechanism for the rest of the citizens.

Let the states perform civil ceremonies for homosexuals who want to play house ... but no SS or medicare benefits for stay at home "spouses".

Play marriage all you want but don't subject children to that aberration of family life ... or expect me to pay for your "retirement" and medical care as "survivor" benefits ...

Since when do we live in a theocracy?

We don't. But the large majority of people believe in God. And this nation was created by people who belived in a "Creator", they believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. I am certain that the issue of same-sex marriage never even entered into the consciousnes of any of the Founding fathers -- it would have been too preposterous.

That's not to say that things can't or don't change. And maybe down the road the state will stop issuing marriage licenses entirely and it will be "civil unions" for everyone. But I just don't see the term "marriage" being redefined anytime soon, if ever.

Even in Massachusetts, where gay marriage was made legal by a court order forcing the state governemnt to allow it, the proponents have been fighting year after year to keep the4 issue off the ballot and prevent voters in that liberal state from voting to overturn the ruling and law. And if they ever get the chance, they will overturn it.

Let the states perform civil ceremonies for homosexuals who want to play house ... but no SS or medicare benefits for stay at home "spouses".

Play marriage all you want but don't subject children to that aberration of family life ... or expect me to pay for your "retirement" and medical care as "survivor" benefits ...

I'll agree to this when churches have to start paying property taxes. I don't want to support that lifestyle.

"Play marriage all you want but don't subject children to that aberration of family life ... or expect me to pay for your "retirement" and medical care as "survivor" benefits ..."

F U and your selfish, self-righteous, sanctamonious bullshit.

""Play marriage all you want but don't subject children to that aberration of family life ... or expect me to pay for your "retirement" and medical care as "survivor" benefits ...""

But the gay community should pay for yours...that's real fair.
About what I would expect from a homophobe.

Rev says, "I'll agree to this when churches have to start paying property taxes. I don't want to support that lifestyle."

I'm not so conditional and would support property tax for churches -- based on their revenue after missionary funds deducted, now ...

The legal benefits are NOT, i repeat NOT equal!!!! A gay couple cannot own a house together where each contributes a different amount of $$ to the property (or any asset for that matter) without triggering GIFT TAXES. They can't buy a car for one another. They can't share assets unless they pay equal amounts for it!! There are NUMEROUS rights that people don't think of that makes a gay household pretty much impossible to run.

B, So then am I to assume that if all the benefits of "civil unions" were equal to "civil marriage" you would support "civil unions" and not attempt to force the state to include same sex couples under the definition of "marriage"?

As long as the queen Dumper can't marry the piss trough or the guy in the handicap stall waiting for services, I don't give a shit if gays are allowed to have civil unions.
Just as long as Dumper continues to be a self loathing queen.

Yes, BOWA.

Yes, BOWA.

Well, I agree as well.

and not attempt to force the state to include same sex couples under the definition of "marriage"?

This parsing of words is a waste of time. Codify it as a civil union. Gay couple gets a civil union. They will leave the courthouse in a car with "just married" soaped on the back window. What are you gonna do?

Making words the crux of this issue is a stalling tactic, methinks.

Seperate but equal rights...
but at the same time support discrimination against gays because of this gene.
That is biggotry...

I agree with Rev and _B_, marriage is just a word. If the rights are supported, there's no real discrimination and it's good enough for now.

I'm a pragmatist, and I recognize that 49% of America isn't ready for gay marriage. Shoving it down their throats isn't going to help anyone.
It will likely only lead to a backlash in popular support.

Baby steps. Right now you've still got people claiming 9-11 happened because of gays and the anti-christ will appear if two men get married.

You want to call them cowardly politicians for not coming out in full support? Fine, I'll agree with that. But they're not biggots.

That being said, BOWA, if there are those who are unwilling to give those rights to gays, i don't care what means (so long as it isn't illegal or violent) are used to achieve such equal treatment under the law---marriage, union, constitutional amendment, judicial decision, vote of the public, etc.

That is why it is important for the right to realize they aren't going to stop this movement. Period. If they really care about the word "marriage" that much--they better provide another mechanism, like unions. Problem is, however, i don't think the majority really care about the word--i think they're using semantics and religion to mask their own feeling of "eew, that's gross!" and justify discrimination.

These rights can not and will not be denied forever.

Making words the crux of this issue is a stalling tactic, methinks.

The term "marriage" is not just a legal construct and has historical and emotional ramifications that extend far beyond mere rights and benefits. As I said before, I believe the common understanding of the definition of marriage is that it is a union of a man and woman that is blessed by God and the Community. And even if the marriage never takes place in a Church, there is an almost inherent understanding that a "marriage" is a transcendant relationship that has been sanctified by an even higher authority then the government.

The state really has no business recognizing "marriage", as it defines a religious construct, in the first place. Its akin to the state recognizing the priesthood or being a nun, who technically is "married" to Jesus.

The duty of the state, as defined by the equal protection clause of the Constitution, is to provide the same laws and regulations to everyone without prejudice imo. When the state allows different rules and structures to heterosexuals that commit to life partnerships, why should these same things be denied to non-traditional couples? If people have trouble with extending equal rights in these situations, then why should these people be forced through their taxation to fund the institutional discrimination against themselves?

Its easy to state what we don't like about the way others live their lives, but even in sham marriages, the state cannot change the legislative mandates offered by the state's recognition of a legal union no matter that this union may be corrupt from the start. In my mind, this is the price of liberty cojoined with the pursuit of happiness. The state should recognize legal unions or a similar construct of equal legal standing, and leave the term marriage to the religious and the spiritual.

But the bottomline continues to be that the coupling of individuals into the life-unit we call "marriage" or "civil unions" must be open to any two people driven to share their lives, wealth, hopes and dreams together ostensibly for the rest of their lives. The state should recognize that taxpayers are taxpayers and when placed into similar circumstances due to the free will of the individuals, the government should view their partnerships in the same ways even though it may not be popular with a large cross-section of this nation. As with most change, we'll get used to it probably sooner rather than later.

That is fine BOWA--and i can respect that. You are obviously some of the very few who i believe. Partly because you actually support unions.

The question is, would you contact your representatives, vote in an election, etc. to INSTITUTE UNIONS?

Idiot judge. So now, all one has to do to justify a ban on any kind of marriage is to demonstrate that that it "promotes responsible reproduction"?

I was interested in this point that RIR brought up and looked into it.
I found the Iowa law. All it says is:
595.2. Gender - Age : 1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

Nothing in the law about promoting reproduction. However, the judge was not being an idiot. He was responding to the argument made by the state.

The judge rejected the state's arguments that a ban on same-sex marriages "promotes procreation," promotes child-rearing by different-sex couples, "promotes stability in opposite-sex relationships," conserves state and private resources, and promotes "the concept of fundamental marriage or the integrity of traditional marriage."

The question is, would you contact your representatives, vote in an election, etc. to INSTITUTE UNIONS?

I don't know about contacting my representatives, it's not that big an issue for me.

But I would definitely vote for civil unions if given the opportunity.

I think that gay couples should be afforded the same legal rights and benefits as "civil marriages". But at the same time, I believe that the term "marriage" means a union between a man and woman, and to include same sex couples under that definition would make a "marriage" no longer a "marriage".

The term "marriage" is not just a legal construct and has historical and emotional ramifications that extend far beyond mere rights and benefits. As I said before, I believe the common understanding of the definition of marriage is that it is a union of a man and woman that is blessed by God and the Community. And even if the marriage never takes place in a Church, there is an almost inherent understanding that a "marriage" is a transcendant relationship that has been sanctified by an even higher authority then the government.

Government laws are NOT codified by the belief structures of religions, Bowa. Using the prism of religion really never should be an issue. The church is free to maintain its rules and dictates, but they should have no sway over the inherent liberty bestowed by our Constitution to ALL people, whether they're believers or not. There is no religious/spiritual litmus test for being an American and there never has been one.

While there may certainly be "an even higher authority," the Constitution and the laws it sets forth for us to abide by are the highest legal authority in this nation and the Alpha and Omega for deciding what is deemed best for society overall as it again pertains to the need of providing social order and domestic tranquility. This doesn't occur by using religious dogma to brand particular citizens as 2nd class and to treat them unequally, even though the government demands the very same from them as it does from everyone else nurtured by the assistance of specific laws falling under "marriage."

The term "marriage" is not just a legal construct and has historical and emotional ramifications that extend far beyond mere rights and benefits

So what? Maybe you feel that way about the word, but to me it's just a word.

So what? Maybe you feel that way about the word, but to me it's just a word.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-08-31 10:43 AM | Reply


So is "Nigger". Well not really since we burried it. You know what, nevermind.
Sincerely,
The NAACP

""there is an almost inherent understanding that a "marriage" is a transcendant relationship that has been sanctified by an even higher authority then the government.""

sanctified????
baloney.

I can accept that some folks don't want to label a civil union between two members of the same sex as a marriage but by the same token I do not really believe that "marriage" between two people of opposite genders is any more than just a different term for a civil union.
The fact that divorce is possible and common reduces the idea of "marriage" to just civil union.
You can't pretend some "sanctity" or "blessing from God" for an institution which is dso easily disolved in a civil court. In truth the argument about "gay marriage" is nonsensical because of the fact that any "sanctity" marriage ever had has long since been removed in modern society.

But at the same time, I believe that the term "marriage" means a union between a man and woman, and to include same sex couples under that definition would make a "marriage" no longer a "marriage".

That's cool, other people don't. Deal with it.

And further...any relationship that is "sanctified" by God is marriage regardless if the legal system acknowledges it or not.
I don't believe that any human being can decide for God which relationships He "sanctifies" or doesn't sanctify and I believe that many homosexual relationships are more "sanctified" than many heterosexual relationships.

"I won't support or encourage behavior I consider immoral and a perversion of life"

Note to Tadowe:

Gay marriage bans don't ban gay sex.

This doesn't occur by using religious dogma to brand particular citizens as 2nd class and to treat them unequally

Which is why I support "civil unions" that afford same sex couples the same legal rights and benefits as "civil marriage"

And unlike the "separate but equal" laws that kept blacks segregated, " the difference between "civil unions" and "civil mariage" is not structural but definitional.

Where, blacks were found to have been structurally neglected with among other things, less monies, inferior buildings, equipment and materials and therefore could not be 'separate but equal", the "civil marraige' vs "Civil union' debate centers only on the definition of the word "marriage" -- it is a union between a man and a woman, while "civil unions" can be used to define any relationship between consenting adults -- but all the benefits and rights afforded to bothe would be exactly the same -- and if they are not -- then they should be.

BOWA--i can respect that. Like i said, rights are paramount--the words used to describe it, to me, is of no issue.

JimmyWallback says, "Actually it is good to see the judicial system putting a stop to the policies of hate and bigotry of the right."

Yes, of course, and everyone can see that you applaud restrictions of speech -- after all, that is the socialist way. Indeed, The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) was in lock-step with that very same thing/action, and assigned a special unit to conduct purges against those they wanted to deny their speech. They called them Schutzstaffel (SS) and found that the hateful and hate-filled Jew, gypsie and other undesirables were just like the "right" to them -- someone to stamp out using any means possible ...

... pansies of the Leftist/Democratics prefer the courts and their radicals in congress to do their dirty work against the rightwing/neocon/warmongers, and can't be bothered to sully their hands carrying batons, but they can support denying those of such evil, or in the ghetto, the right to keep their weapons ...

Posted by tadowe


Good grief what foaming-at-the-mouth drivel. They really should take the computer out of the day room in his ward, don't you think?

"49% of America isn't ready for gay marriage. Shoving it down their throats isn't going to help anyone.
It will likely only lead to a backlash in popular support."

While what you're saying is true, that's no reason not to make gay marriage a reality. Every step toward equal rights in this country has been opposed by the majority of the public. They don't understand the Constitution, but they will learn to live with it.

The legal benefits are NOT, i repeat NOT equal!!!! A gay couple cannot own a house together where each contributes a different amount of $$ to the property (or any asset for that matter) without triggering GIFT TAXES. They can't buy a car for one another. They can't share assets unless they pay equal amounts for it!! There are NUMEROUS rights that people don't think of that makes a gay household pretty much impossible to run.

Posted by B
* * * *

That isn't true. They could buy the home as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship--don't have to be married to have that happen, and the transaction is free of any consideration on the gift tax.

As usual, I think that this is another example of gays getting lousy advice, or, more likely, they know what the right answer is, but hope that the people listening to their impassioned arguments are ignorant when it comes to these issues involving tax, wills, probate.

I'm not ignorant. And it's a good thing I'm here.

I believe that many homosexual relationships are more "sanctified" than many heterosexual relationships.

True dat.

and further proof that we do not live in a democracy where majority rules.

There's damn good reason for that BL2. Majority rule isn't always the best course of action.

If Texas becomes majority hispanic, and they vote to kick out all the white people, will you leave?
After all, that would be the will of the democratic majority, right?

Posted by Norm_ at 2007-08-31 09


yeah well in this particular case I wasnt decrying that libs have changed that, just recognizing that we arent a democracy in its truest form, which leads to this sort of judge tampering with the voice of people with values that formed and built this country in the first place.




danni.......I think that an answer to your post of 10.48 can be found in the bible, if you care to go to the source.

oh and norm......when I try to get in to a corner store and the yard trucks are there, it feels like they have already kicked us out. and if you think thats a descriminatory comment......
tough shit....cause I dont care.

""it is a union between a man and a woman""

In your opinion but someone else's opinion to the contrary is just as valid.

believe that many homosexual relationships are more "sanctified" than many heterosexual relationships.

Well, my point was not whether or not some relationships were sanctified by God or not, it was to explain what I believe is the major reason why there is so much fighting over the definition of "marriage" and rejection of "civil unions" which even George Bush supports.

Gay marriage bans don't ban gay sex.

Posted by JOE at 2007-08-31 10:51 AM | Reply


of course not, but it doesnt pretend to make it normal behavior either and thats something your side will never do.


and midi......it makes sense that you would call our attacks on judicial activism all sorts of names, cause thats all you've got.......

Where, blacks were found to have been structurally neglected...

That was a pretty cool post, actually. Good show.

I agree with Rev and _B_, marriage is just a word. If the rights are supported, there's no real discrimination and it's good enough for now.


Everyone has the right to water, circa 1954, just you can't drink from the "Whites Only" fountain... hey its just a word, water is water, quit being so uppity...

A bus is a bus... and a seat is a seat... there is no difference between the ones in the front and the ones in the back... so why all the hub-bub?

The way you Libs try to hide and justify your biggotry is really amusing...

AND you see, its difficult to come to middle ground on this issue because it requires that both sides have moral values and the left on this issue has none.
and sure give me the shit about ....oh yeah many gay couples have values....yeah right....thats why they are gay.......
and I also await the comments about what would jesus do and I think he might hate the sin but love the sinner and he still wouldnt sanctify gay marriage.........
so I also await the sanctamonious and piety garbage about descrimination and all that does is muddy the memory of civil rights activists who battled real descrimination.

Yes, of course, and everyone can see that you applaud restrictions of speech -- after all, that is the socialist way. Indeed, The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) was in lock-step with that very same thing/action, and assigned a special unit to conduct purges against those they wanted to deny their speech. They called them Schutzstaffel (SS) and found that the hateful and hate-filled Jew, gypsie and other undesirables were just like the "right" to them -- someone to stamp out using any means possible ...

... pansies of the Leftist/Democratics prefer the courts and their radicals in congress to do their dirty work against the rightwing/neocon/warmongers, and can't be bothered to sully their hands carrying batons, but they can support denying those of such evil, or in the ghetto, the right to keep their weapons ...

Posted by tadowe




FROM ANOTHER THREAD:

I was spit on, again, in '76 when a self-proclaimed "hippy" found out I was an Army officer and served voluntarily in Vietnam.

It is petty liars like you that disgust me more than any other type of human jerkoff -- promoting ignorance and lies ... all for party, all for the gang ...

Posted by tadowe


Taddy,

I'm going to retract some part of what I said earlier on another thread. I HAVE NOT DOUBT THAT PEOPLE HAVE SPAT UPON YOU IN THE PAST. But it was probably far less about you having served in Vietnam and more about the fact that you're an incredibly hateful droolin' fool.

Rob,

Stop misrepresenting my position.

As I said, if given the choice between seperate but equal and not equal at all, I'll take the former. It's not my first choice, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

NOT oughta have been NO

When are they going to declare polygamy laws unconstitutional?

Rob,

Stop misrepresenting my position.


Just trying to bring to the forefront the cold truth of the matter, that Democrats and Liberals are supporting biggotry.

As I said, if given the choice between seperate but equal and not equal at all, I'll take the former. It's not my first choice, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

Posted by RevDarko


But those aren't the only choices. Dennis Kucinich is flat out for marriage for anyone who wants it... not seperate but equal discriminatory laws.

No Rob, we're still at the point of letting them drink from a fountain or sit in a seat in the first place.

You need to actually get on the bus first before you fight over which seat you sit in.

2nd Thursday of next week.

When are they going to declare polygamy laws unconstitutional?

Who cares? Are you a polygamist?

When are they going to declare the alcohol laws, set at 21, to be unconstitutional. Kids at the age of 18 can be drafted.




When are they going to declare women being exempted from Selective Service to be unconstitutional.





When are they going to declare discounts for senior citizens to be unconstitutional. Totally based on age.




When are they going to stop retirement communities from denying access to under 65 year olds. Again, age discrimination.




When are they going to make The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) change their name to NAAAM) so it is politically correct? It's African Americans. Last time my grandpappy used the word Colored, someone took offense. Why?

Poor Taddy. Nothing he could do but stand there while some peacenik spat upon him. LOL

(now for the Rest of the Story--you know the scene where Taddy kicks ass. What an embarrassment that he claims to be a veteran.)

"civil unions" which even George Bush supports.- Bowa.

You repeatedly say this, Bowa, but I don't believe he has every said that. I think he has alluded to a hypothetical situation where states may have the authority to legalize civil unions. I don't think he has "supported" that position, but he has repeatedly called for the most inane and ridiculous amendment to the Constitution in the history of the United States. It's not going anywhere,of course, like most of his agenda. He is going to have a fun time in Australia hearing the hatred of America one would never have expected from that country. And, by the way, off topic I know, did you hear him say in an Australian interview this morning that "19 kids had flown airplanes into buildings and killed 3000 students" ?
3000 STUDENTS? He is so losing it.

1) It is unnatural (save arguments about animals because any male of any species will prefer the female over any pretense of procreation they make with a member of their own sex)


I suggest that you take at least one course in either physical anthropology or evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory, especially regarding sexual selection, has changed greatly since Darwin's time.

In many species (including humans), it's often better to spread your genes in other ways besides reproduction. This typically manifests itself in putting your sibling's or children's reproduction ahead of your own. It's important to remember that you are as genetically similar to your siblings and parents as you are to your own children.

I'll try to keep this brief :-) For example, in many birds, especially where resources are limited, it's not uncommon for siblings of birds to invest their resources in ensuring their sibling and/or sibling's offspring stand a better chance of survival. Evolutionary, this makes sense because you're better off investing in your sibling's offspring than creating too many of your own which the ecosystem can't sustain.

In terms of humans, "Grandmother Theory" definitely comes to mind. Women tend to gradually lose fertility over the course of their lifetimes and then lose it entirely because of menopause. For a long time, there has been a great debate on why human female reproduction shuts down at around the age of 50 (and historically much earlier), since according to straight natural selection, animals should be popping out babies until the very end. At this point, most physical anthropologists support the theory that menopause shuts down a women's reproduction, so she (in theory) can invest resources towards grandchildren; ie, (in a world w/out menopause) a 60 year old women is better off investing time and resources in her grandkids than risking her own death as well as 90% chance of miscarriage.

It seems perfectly reasonable that it's just as "natural" that due to selective pressures, the reproduction of 1/10th of the human population may be limited for the greater good of their lineages. It may be a stretch to assume that every elderly person who never had children (ie, "confirmed bachelor") is gay but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is... Can you not see how they may help their siblings by investing in their nieces and nephews in lieu of having children of their own?

Personally, I have two great Aunts who never married (I have no idea if they were gay or not), and they were a considerable financial help to my parents when I was a kid.

When are they going to declare polygamy laws unconstitutional?

Who cares? Are you a polygamist?

Posted by ness_gadol

No, because that would be illegal.
Plus, who would be so stupid to have two mother-in-laws. Better off marrying sisters or going to WV.

As for 'who cares', it's the same-sex group. The argument against same sex by the church crowd is the same for polygamy - immorality.

Plus, who would be so stupid to have two mother-in-laws.

Posted by Petrous


Lot's of stuff that you and I disagree on, but I'm right there with'ya on this.

Didn't they try and make "Ladies Night" illegal? I believe they may have in NY based upon discrimination.
It sort of threw a wrench in my plans for opening a bar and having Thursday Nights being "Midgets get half priced drinks".

But those aren't the only choices. Dennis Kucinich is flat out for marriage for anyone who wants it... not seperate but equal discriminatory laws.

This is a strawman. One cannot couch this as Dems supporting discrimintory laws, when the opposition is trying to actually prevent equal rights at all.

Now, you are correct in that Kucinich has the better ideas regarding same-sex marriage, however, you are being disingenuous when claiming the other Dem candidates (by supporting civil unions) are being discriminatory when many on the right don't even support that.

""AND you see, its difficult to come to middle ground on this issue because it requires that both sides have moral values and the left on this issue has none.""

Pretending that your moral values are superior only proves to me that you determine who has moral values simply on a basis of who agrees with you.
That is a very self-centered, immature view of the world.

Why, last time a Clinton was in the WH, they burned some rightwing conspiracy plotters to death, along with 23 of their children.

Posted by tadowe at 2007-08-31 09:32 AM | Reply

Leave it to Tad to support a self proclaimed Messiah and pedophile.

Since when do we live in a theocracy?

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-08-31 09:46 AM | Reply

2001.

and once again, the will of the people doesnt mean a damned thing.
and further proof that we do not live in a democracy where majority rules.


Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-08-31 09:33 AM | Reply

And if the majority of the will of the people still beleived it was acceptable to own another human being you would be allright with that as well?

"Will of the People" is a thinly veiled arguement to author hate legislation.

OZARK-

Good to see you, Flatlander.

That is COMPLETELY WRONG. JTWROS only dispells with going through PROBATE. You still have estate/gift taxes implications. Not to mention, that doesn't deal with the present GIFT TAX implication during their lifetime.

www.cobar.org


Posted by __b__
* * * *

That's mistaken. JTWROS is done all the time to facilitate the purchase of property, and unless such an arrangement was done specifically to avoid income or gift taxes, the tax authorities don't care. Just like when unmarried persons decide to live together and buy a house, nobody has to worry about an IRS agent asking for records to determine which partner contributed the lion's share of the income necessary to secure the mortgage.

Again, it's a strawman thrown up by gay advocates. Nice try, but if you can show me a case or two whereby a gay couple was audited for violating gift tax rules, I'll pay attention. Otherwise no. Like I've said before--if you believe gays should have the right to be married, you need to be careful about cherry-picking arguments that don't stand up to real-world scrutiny. The idea that a gay man can't leave his property to whomever he wishes is another such example--all he needs is a will.

The sooner Gay people get the rights they desire, the sooner they'll blend into society and, most importantly, shut the fuck up. I'm all for it.


Taddy,

2) It is a genetic dead-end

Yeah, that's true. But they keep showing up! Let it be.

Tad,

What the fuck is wrong with you? This isn't about free speech. No one ever said you couldn't say or believe that marriage was only for a man or woman. That's what the constitution guarantees you.

And for the record, the religious right (the delusional fucks you seem to agree with) are the ones trying to legislate morality and behavior. That sounds a lot more like the Nazi party to me than someone wanting other people to live their lives in peace, with the same rights as everyone else.

This is a strawman. One cannot couch this as Dems supporting discrimintory laws, when the opposition is trying to actually prevent equal rights at all.

No it isn't... Let's look back to 1960... if you had Republicans saying, "Blacks shouldn't be allowed to ride the bus," and you had Democrats say, "Well, yes they should, but they always have to sit in the back and if a white man wants their seat then they have to give it up," we wouldn't be saying its the lesser of two evils, we would be saying its just two evils.

Democrats are supporting discriminatory laws along with anti gay marriage republicans, but the Democrats are worse because they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. At least the anti GM republicans are honest. They don't like Homosexuality (Publicly that is), and they want laws against it, while Democrats claim it is natural and genetic but still want laws against it.

Rob,

Not excusing the behavior, but fighting for a black man's right to use public transportation (even if he had to give up his seat) was a step forward for that time, although a very small step forward.

You're saying that even though the Democrats (of the time, not the same Democrats of today) shouldn't get ANY credit for making that happen because most would consider it "not enough" by today's standards.

Atleast the Liberals of that time had the balls to fight for those rights, even when Conservatives wanted to maintain the status quo. Maybe you should take that into account, but I don't expect you to.

The idea that a gay man can't leave his property to whomever he wishes is another such example--all he needs is a will.

But the same default rules that apply to heterosexual couples do not apply to married couples.

Ha! I have some satisfaction: This is the beginning. You tightie-righties better get used to the idea of your courts in your states throwing out these ridiculous laws and amendments. It was a matter of time before the cases actually reached the courts.

And 101- What the hell are you doing lurking around a piss-trough? Watching me take a piss? wI suppose it didn't escape your notice that my Gay Dick is thick, veined, hairy, long AND bigger/better than yours, you fake-military limp-noodled child fucker.

You are such a faggot, 101. I can't wait for you to come out of your closet and apologize to the rest of us fags for YOUR SELF-LOATHING all these years.

You make me laugh nearly every day with your specious reasoning and your faith in your invisible fairy god father.

Oh, and BLT, BOWA and ROTAH...

In a word: BWAHHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

It's a good day to 'make the choice' to be gay. Think I'll suck my husbands COCK this morning to celebrate.

Moreover, RiR you can gift to your spouse tax free you can't gift to your partenr tax free.

Thus, if a husband give his wife a gift that exceeds the annual exclusion amount as provided in IRC 2503(b) the husband won't have to pay gift taxes; however, if a gay man gives his partner the same gift he will have to pay gift taxes.

Taxman, you obviously don't know shit---i mean, should we believe you're a tax expert just because your name has the word "tax" in it? Come on now. Quit making this crap up to push your radical, communist, anti-american, family-destroying homosexual agenda.

My typing is way off today. I am trying to give up coffee and it appears to have some effect on me.

B,

Why don't you actually refute what Taxman is saying by citing something to the contrary?

It would go a whole lot farther to proving he's wrong than you pussing out and saying "you don't know shit".

You could also resort to something other than name-calling and fear-mongering. Did you go to the Pat Robertson School of Law? I think there's a place in the Bush Administration for folks like you.

It's a good day to 'make the choice' to be gay. Think I'll suck my husbands COCK this morning to celebrate.

Have fun with that. I suppose that's one way to "pop the cork in celebration."

DDenton, B was being sarcastic. Read further up in the thread.

Leave it to Tad to support a self proclaimed Messiah and pedophile.

Posted by JimmyWallback

Jimmy,

Please tell me I'm not reading this right.

do you choose to hallucinate along with bbob on this issue?

"However, I will not provide funds to support homosexual marriage....

Posted by tadowe at 2007-08-31 09:00 AM"

Perhaps then you should only attend gay weddings that have hosted bars.

wI suppose it didn't escape your notice that my Gay Dick is thick, veined, hairy, long AND bigger/better than yours, you fake-military limp-noodled child fucker.

homos struggle with anger problems

"The idea that a gay man can't leave his property to whomever he wishes is another such example--all he needs is a will."
Posted by rightisright

That doesn't come close to adressing the issues which effect the poorest the most: inheritance of SS benefits and IRAs, and the rights to a "second-to-die" pension option.

No amount of lawyers or jumping through hoops will guarantee rights like these, which straights like my wife and I get to take for granted.

Taxman,

Well then, my bad for being late to the part.

"party".

Rob, I'm sorry, but I find your political advice just a tad bit disingenuous.

For the last two years you've been ragging on Democrats for nominating uber-liberal John Kerry, who was too liberal to get elected.
How many times have you "thanked" Democrats for nominating Kerry, thereby assuring Bush's re-election?

But now that the Dem front runners aren't left-wing idealogs, now that they are more pragmatic types who CAN get elected and enact change at a manageable pace...
Now of course now you rag on the Dems for NOT nominating an un-electible uber-liberal.

Um, yeah, sure. Thanks for your concern.

"Gay couples who share a home mortgage and deduct the loan interest from their individual tax returns are facing increased scrutiny from the IRS audit process, according to Lynn Pasqualetti, managing partner at HLM Financial products in Decatur, Ga."

"And the IRS is taking a closer look at non-married couples who have financial entanglements that are reflected at tax time she said"

Posted by __b__
* * * *

Not the same thing. Of course the IRS would bring some of those returns under scrutiny--if a bank issues a statement of mortgage interest paid that is carved up over different tax returns, the IRS in taking a look to ensure that the same interest isn't claimed twice is not being discriminatory, just sensible. So what?

Same old tired ground of IRA's and pensions. You can name anyone you please as the beneficiary of your IRA or pension. Is it unfair that the spouse has an additional option--rolling it over tax-free into her own IRA without immediately paying tax?--yes, it is. And it's the same problem faced by single people, which constitute a majority of US adults now. Social Security is unfair to singles and minorities, as is Medicare. If you want to change the law to make all this stuff fair and equitable to everyone, sign me up. But when I hear that gays only want the same benefits that married couples have, I realize what they really want--the opportunity to pick my pocket, as tens of millions of married Americans already are.

Here's an idea: scrap the Married Filing Jointly status, and standardize the pension and qualified plan rules so that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of marital status. Let's end discrimination in these areas once and for all.

"Gay couples who share a home mortgage and deduct the loan interest from their individual tax returns are facing increased scrutiny from the IRS audit process, according to Lynn Pasqualetti, managing partner at HLM Financial products in Decatur, Ga."

"And the IRS is taking a closer look at non-married couples who have financial entanglements that are reflected at tax time she said"

Posted by __b__

B, are you even thinking about what that statement means? A husband and wife, filing joint, can claim the mortgage interest. If they file separately, they are in the same position as two gays claiming the home mortgage. They both can't claim the full amount.

Saying the IRS is looking closer is silly. I would hope they are looking at it regardless of whether the two or more parties are married, lovers, or just partners in business/pleasure.

BTW, even if the States accept the unions, Clinton signed the bill making the Federal Gov't to not honor civil unions.

Oops RiR, you beat me to it.

I agree. I'd like to see marriage removed from the rules as a requirement to gain benefit.

Then, once done, we'll see if the argument was for the rights or for the title 'marriage'.

"But when I hear that gays only want the same benefits that married couples have, I realize what they really want--the opportunity to pick my pocket, as tens of millions of married Americans already are. "

Horse manure. Using that logic, they currently carry your sorry ass, since gays pay in at the same rate as straights yet don't have the same beneficiary rights. You (and I) are picking their pocket.

I'm hoping you're not serious. Are you denying Koresh was a self-professed messiah and pedophile?

Hell no. I was referring to George HW Bush.

Freedom for others is too much for some Americans to handle.

Gay marriage hurts no one. If gay marriage were allowed, we might have a better looking first lady today. If all the closeted republicans voted their sexual preference it would have been legal long ago.

RiR, you conveniently skipped over my point. Do you have a solution for the couple in the fact pattern I proposed - other than don't gift?

Gay marriage hurts no one.

BINGO!

In my ministerial capacity, I've performed 8 marriage ceremonies, 5 of which were same sex. There has been NO difference in audiences, the feelings involved or the reasons behind them (the only difference was the unfortunate lack of recognition by the state for those 5). Additonally, none of the straight marriages were harmed or cheapened in any way by those 5.

Horse manure. Using that logic, they currently carry your sorry ass, since gays pay in at the same rate as straights yet don't have the same beneficiary rights. You (and I) are picking their pocket.

Posted by Danforth
* * * * *

What beneficiary rights do I have that they don't? I'm divorced. It's you who are picking their pocket, and mine, frankly.

I look at this in the same way as when people militate for free medical care to illegals. More people standing in line to get something I'll be paying for. So, sorry if I don't really give a damn about something I can tell you're really worked up about. There's nobody to leave my Social Security benefits to. There's nobody to leave my pension to. But I don't see a giant lobby of professional leftist grievance-mongerers taking people to court to demonstrate how unfair it is, let alone unconstitutional. Personally, I think it'll be funny to watch gays get married, then divorced. I'll even predict, in advance, a lot of the jokes you'll hear: "I used to be gay, then I got married." And that's a sentiment we can all relate to, if you know what I mean.

Dumper you silly little queen, just because your real family disowned you is no reason to go and invent a new one by claiming you have a husband.
Now go dip your head in that favorite urinal of yours and cool off.

Then, once done, we'll see if the argument was for the rights or for the title 'marriage'.

Posted by Petrous

Exactly

RIR

"There's nobody to leave my pension to. But I don't see a giant lobby of professional leftist grievance-mongerers taking people to court to demonstrate how unfair it is, let alone unconstitutional."

But you have the option of marrying again.


You pay nothing for gay marriage. Gays marrying will not affect your lifestyle or bank account in any way.

101,

You have got the be the first person I've who has Downs' Syndrome AND can type. Keep up the good work.

Still haven't heard one credible argument against gay marriage except that bigots don't like it. Ho hum.

RiR, you conveniently skipped over my point. Do you have a solution for the couple in the fact pattern I proposed - other than don't gift?

Posted by taxman
* * * *

Sure. Let anyone gift anything they want to whomever they want. Do away with the gift tax completely--after all, the income has already been taxed once, to the donor. So why should the government have any say as to what they guy wants to do with the money next?

"What beneficiary rights do I have that they don't? I'm divorced. "

Wha?!?!? You have the right to marry?!?!?

So you could be taking advantage of these rights, you just choose not to. I'd say that is leaps ahead of those who don't even have the right you and I get to take for granted. You've also spoken in the past of marrying again. Of course your spouse will attain all rights, including the SS ones. And while you were married, you and your spouse(s) were protected by SS inheritance laws. Seems unfair you wish to deny rights you so easily and automatically enjoyed, doesn't it?

Seems unfair you wish to deny rights you so easily and automatically enjoyed, doesn't it?

Posted by Danforth
* * * *

You're not listening. I don't wish to deny those rights to anyone. In fact, I want to extend them to everyone, regardless of whether they choose to marry, or not. A married couple should have no more rights than a divorced single man or a widowed woman or a gay couple who wants to get married or a gay man who does not. You're trying to assign a position to me that I don't have.

So let me ask you this: would you be in favor of having all US citizens pay---married or not---pay taxes at the same rate, based only upon income? That would be most fair, you see. Or is this one of those rights you enjoy as a married person that you're quite happy to deny to the unmarried, unless they're gay?

" the same way as when people militate for free medical care to illegals."

Riiiiiiight. Equality is akin to encouraging people to break the law by giving them free medical care.

All money is taxed whenever it changes hands again except in tax exempt circumstances. Morons saying things like the money for the inheritence tax has already been taxed---well DUH---but not by the new people getting the money. You get income---you pay tax.

The money received by employees has already been taxed.

The money received by employers has already been taxed.

Money gets taxed everytime it changes hands except as noted. Face reality.

You have got the be the first person I've who has Downs' Syndrome AND can type. Keep up the good work.

Posted by ddenton at 2007-08-31 01:07 PM | Reply


First person you've "what" retard?

Always be sure to check your work before insinuating that a poster is dumb. Now wipe your chin and re-adjust your helmet.

Marriage is not a religious contract, it is a legal contract.

Sure. Let anyone gift anything they want to whomever they want. Do away with the gift tax completely--after all, the income has already been taxed once, to the donor. So why should the government have any say as to what they guy wants to do with the money next?

That isn't the issue RiR, you stated with good planning, homosexual couples could get the same treatment as heterosexual couples for tax purposes. This shows that it isn't true and that married couples do have an advantage.

Money gets taxed everytime it changes hands except as noted. Face reality.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob
* * * *

The reality is that if I inherit $500,000, I don't pay tax. The reality is that if I give my parents $10,000, they don't pay tax. What reality do you live in?

Face reality.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'm laughing my ass off at this statement.

sure bob.....good advice.

RIR

The same reality as you. I was referring to the morons who say that paying taxes on inheritence money is not fair because it has already been taxed. Is that YOU?

The half million and ten thousand you reference is tax exempt as noted.

101,

You can proofread my work for grammatical errors, but still don't display semblance of intelligence. That is impressive.

Eberly

Thanks--try it sometime. Try answering questions also--it helps others discern where you stand on certain issues relating to reality.

Like how does gay marriage hurt anyone else?

Whoah, there's another one, better jump on it 101.

That isn't the issue RiR, you stated with good planning, homosexual couples could get the same treatment as heterosexual couples for tax purposes. This shows that it isn't true and that married couples do have an advantage.

Posted by taxman
* * * *

Negative. What I responded to was the ridiculous assertion that gays couldn't leave their property to whomever they wanted. They can. They can leave life insurance, annuities, pensions, and retirement plans to anyone they choose simply by filling out a change of beneficiary form, and bypass probate besides. For real property, they can direct those things from the grave with a will. Just like everybody.

It is in the very small handful of instances that married persons enjoy an advantage--unlimited lifetime giftime, IRA rollovers into other qualified accounts, spousal continuation on SS and pension benefits--it is in these that I advocate doing away with them completely. They are no less disciminatory to gays than they are to singles, to widows, or to Americans married to non-citizens.

"standardize the pension and qualified plan rules so that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of marital status. Let's end discrimination in these areas once and for all."

Well, I agree with that, but that's not going to happen, and we both know that. Still, currently we have a situation where the same scenario with a gay couple vs a straight couple is grossly unequal, over 1,000 laws/rights according to the government itself. A book I read has a passage "Do unto others", and my moral compass tells me if the tables were reversed, I wouldn't want those inequities based solely on my heterosexuality. Therefore, I can't in good conscience support a system which is descriminatory in it's design based solely on sexual orientation, even when it favors mine.

I forget who originally made the statement but this kinda describes that way I feel about this:

Why shouldn't we let gays marry, they deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

The reason same-sex marriages are not legalized is the same reasons that 18 year olds can't buy alcohol but they can be drafted, that women aren't part of selective service, that retire communities can deny access to young people.

These are open discriminations sanctioned by the elected in both State and Federal branches.

It's a choice.

Now the reason same-sex marriage is also not legalized is the same reason polygamy isn't legal - immorality (certain people's immorality).

You have two different camps saying 'no'.

1. In the past, I'd say it was religious reasons.

2. When Clinton signed the bill informing the Executive Branch not to recognize gay marriage/unions, it wasn't because of Clinton's religious views. It was a choice.

". . . unlimited lifetime gifting . . . "

Apologies.

Like how does gay marriage hurt anyone else?

It doesn't.

you are special kind of loser to accuse me of something that YOU don't do.....which is answer questions.

Here's one....Do you think we really landed on the moon?

When there is a reception, do both grooms dance with their mothers? or their fathers?

For those of you who say that same-sex couples have the same rights in this country that married couples have, try looking into applying for spousal (or even engagement) Visas through immigration if your spouse or fiancee is the same sex.

"Let anyone gift anything they want to whomever they want. Do away with the gift tax completely--after all, the income has already been taxed once, to the donor. So why should the government have any say as to what they guy wants to do with the money next?"

No, we're not giving up the entire gift/estate tax. That is fricken insane (though i personally believe the rates should be dropped to personal income rates and the deductions increased substantially, but that is a different issue).

The point remains that there is a significant gift tax issue that needs to be addressed.


I think another major issue is the lack of a legal framework similary to divorce laws that protect divorced spouses. This causes horrible amounts of litigation over splitting assets of "divorced" gay couples---much worse than ordinary couples due to the lack of a legal framework. So just like there is a lack of RIGHTS, there are also a lack of legal RESPONSIBILITIES that, i believe, would significantly improve gay monogamy by providing more structure to the gay family. In other words, in my opinion, it is easier (mentally) to cheat on your girlfriend than it is to cheat on your wife. Cheating on a legal spouse triggers much larger consequences.

And by the way--there were estimates that allowing gay marriage would actually INCREASE tax revenues.

A book I read has a passage "Do unto others", and my moral compass tells me if the tables were reversed, I wouldn't want those inequities based solely on my heterosexuality. Therefore, I can't in good conscience support a system which is descriminatory in it's design based solely on sexual orientation, even when it favors mine.

Posted by Danforth
* * * *

I've read that book too. I find it ironic your moral compass can't sit still for inequities based solely on your heterosexuality, but you don't mind one based solely on your marital status.

standardize the pension and qualified plan rules so that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of marital status. Let's end discrimination in these areas once and for all.


I would definitely go for that.

Eberly

Tell me one question I have never answered. Yes, we landed on the moon. The moon rocks wouldn't have fooled scientists from around the world.

If gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone in your opinion, why do you oppose it?

Whoah, there's another one, better jump on it 101.

Posted by ddenton at 2007-08-31 01:22 PM | Reply


No need to, you're doing a fine job of making yourself look like an idiot with out my help.

Now be sure and go jump on _B_ for your lack of reading comprehension.

And by the way--there were estimates that allowing gay marriage would actually INCREASE tax revenues.

Posted by __b__
* * *

LOL. How?

"When there is a reception, do both grooms dance with their mothers? or their fathers?"


Well, i doubt they're going to dance with their fathers. The real question is who leads?

Well, its probably a techno dj dropping some "untz, untz, untz" beats. I'm guessing the dance is simply a little grinding between the couple--with their shirts off, of course!

And by the way--there were estimates that allowing gay marriage would actually INCREASE tax revenues.

Posted by __b__

How? Seriously, I would like to know.

Crap--hey, go to the link and then cut and paste the non-hyperlinked part.

"It is in the very small handful of instances that married persons enjoy an advantage--unlimited lifetime giftime, IRA rollovers into other qualified accounts, spousal continuation on SS and pension benefits--"

You're joking, right? 40% of my mother-in-law's current income is due to the fact she's straight: a bump up to my late father-in-law's SS, and a second-to-die pension. It's the difference between being able to live, and being destitute, and I'll bet there are a lot more "very small handful of instances" than you're aware of. I'd also bet, in those situations, it's more often the case like ours: the difference between survival and abject poverty. The fact remains: had God made my mother-in-law gay, she'd be broke.

had God made my mother-in-law gay, she'd be broke.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-08-31 01:33 PM | Reply

She wouldn't be your mother in law in that case so why would you care?

If gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone in your opinion, why do you oppose it?

because you don't.



actually, I don't oppose it.

"you don't mind one based solely on your marital status."

That's my choice. A choice I've had the right to make. And a choice you've had a right to make. But some folks don't have that right, and I don't believe in denying others rights I take for granted. There is no difference in the two situations other than sexual orientation. And there's no excuse for inequality solely on that basis.

Leave it to Tad to support a self proclaimed Messiah and pedophile.

Posted by JimmyWallback

Jimmy,

Please tell me I'm not reading this right.

do you choose to hallucinate along with bbob on this issue?

Posted by eberly at 2007-08-31



If gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone in your opinion, why do you oppose it?

because you don't.



actually, I don't oppose it.

Posted by eberly at 2007-08-31 01:36 PM







I see.

"No need to, you're doing a fine job of making yourself look like an idiot with out my help.

Now be sure and go jump on _B_ for your lack of reading comprehension."

Posted by 101Chairborne

It was a matter of not seeing a prior post, not a lack of comprehension, jackass. I had also never seen _B_ post before, so how would I know they might have been joking, again, jackass.

Your concern with reading comprehension is surprising, considering that you can't tell the difference between Under Armor and Body Armor. Although if you weren't being such a ball of cock-snot I might give you the concession of believing you simply misread my post regarding that topic.

You're joking, right? 40% of my mother-in-law's current income is due to the fact she's straight: a bump up to my late father-in-law's SS, and a second-to-die pension. It's the difference between being able to live, and being destitute, and I'll bet there are a lot more "very small handful of instances" than you're aware of. I'd also bet, in those situations, it's more often the case like ours: the difference between survival and abject poverty. The fact remains: had God made my mother-in-law gay, she'd be broke.

Posted by Danforth
* * * *

Really. So your mom gets a nice step-up in benefit in Social Security. Which means that she either didn't work, or earned less than 14% what your father did over her lifetime. Which means that her decision to be a stay-at-home spouse was subsidized by the rest of us. I say again, end it all. If your dad couldn't provide the means to support her in comfort, she should've gotten a job. Is that heartless? Maybe. But your mother is getting a benefit from the virtue of her marriage that is denied to tens of millions of Americans, who do not. If you're really looking to end discrimination, let's start there, eh?
Social Security and pensions are horribly unfair to blacks, who have a lower life expentancy, but pay in at the full rate regardless. They are horribly unfair to widows who die young, or to married men who outlive their spouses who DID work, but get no step-up in benefit because their benefits are already higher than their wife's would have been.
Sorry. Again, I'm an agnostic on gay marriage--couldn't care less. But as soon as you start to bring inequality of finance into the equation, I say, don't think small.

There is no difference in the two situations other than sexual orientation. And there's no excuse for inequality solely on that basis.

Posted by Danforth
* * * *

And I'm saying there's no excuse for inequality based on marital status.

"She wouldn't be your mother in law in that case so why would you care?"

Why not? Why couldn't she be, if, say, she'd adopted my bride at birth?

Or better yet, comment on the fact the same real-life-my-family scenario produces 60% of the income to a gay survivor vs a straight survivor's 100%.

And I'm saying there's no excuse for inequality based on marital status.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-08-31 01:43 PM


That has nothing to do with gay marriage at any rate. Even if gays had all other rights, they should still have the right to marry.

That has nothing to do with gay marriage at any rate. Even if gays had all other rights, they should still have the right to marry.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob
* * * *

They do. RevDarko has performed five of them. I know three married gay couples, here in the Deep South.

"But your mother is getting a benefit from the virtue of her marriage that is denied to tens of millions of Americans, who do not."

But not because they can't...unless, of course, they're gay.

Your concern with reading comprehension is surprising, considering that you can't tell the difference between Under Armor and Body Armor. Although if you weren't being such a ball of cock-snot I might give you the concession of believing you simply misread my post regarding that topic.

Posted by ddenton at 2007-08-31 01:39 PM | Reply


Man you are a retard aren't you? Speaking of comprehension stupid, I was addressing my "Under Armor" post to another poster. You're the idiot that tried to argue about "Under Armor" assuming I meant "Body Armor".
Either way you got dribbled like a basketball in that conversation (thanks for reminding me).

So the fact you jumped into two different exchanges between two different sets of posters (today and the Under Armor convo's) should be a clear sign that you should read more before typing.

Your parents were right, you are special.

RiR,

You're right, I have performed 5 same-sex marriages. The point is, however, that these marriages are not legally recognized. In fact, I have to be VERY careful in my wording when performing these ceremonies, as I cannot use the phrase "by the power vested in me by the state of Tennessee", as I can then be in pretty severe legal trouble.

Frankly, I think governemtn should get the hell out of the marriage business, but if they are going to remain in it, they need to apply it equally to same-sex couples.

Largely unnoticed during the debates surrounding same-sex marriages are their economic consequences, including the impact on government tax collections. It is well-known that a couple's joint income tax burden can change with marriage. Many couples, especially two-earner couples with similar incomes, pay a marriage tax because their taxes when married are more than their combined tax liabilities as single filers. This feature of the income tax suggests thatlegalizing same-sex marriages would increase income tax revenues, because gay and lesbian households are thought to consist primarily of two-earner couples. In this paper we estimate the income tax effects of allowing same-sex couples to marry. We use estimates on the size of the homosexual population, the percent of this population in homosexual relationships, the percent who would marry if same-sex marriage becomes legal, and the average incomes of these couples, in order to generate estimates of the revenue impact. Our calculations indicate that legalizing these marriages would lead to an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion, with the likely impact toward the higher range of the estimates.

Why not? Why couldn't she be, if, say, she'd adopted my bride at birth?

Or better yet, comment on the fact the same real-life-my-family scenario produces 60% of the income to a gay survivor vs a straight survivor's 100%.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-08-31 01:44 PM | Reply


I'm sure there was a whole lot of the lesbian adoption thing going on back when your wife was born...

There are plenty of things in life that aren't fair, we can't fix them all.

But not because they can't...unless, of course, they're gay.

Posted by Danforth
* * * *

You're being deliberately disingenuous. If a black man pays into Social Security his whole life, he will receive a benefit far less than a white man born the same day, even though their incomes were the same. The African-American wives will receive far less, also, simply because of different mortality rates and life expectancy. A woman who marries a man five years her junior will receive far less than one who marries a man ten years her senior, across all races. A man who marries a non-citizens will have really no beneficiary rights at all when it comes to pensions and SS. So the idea that these benefits your mother is racking up is simply because she was married is false--it's because she's white, and because she's in the "sweet spot" of the SS benefit formula, which rewards women who stay at home, and who outlive their spouses by more than 20 months.

And I'm saying, it's all wrong. It's a benefit that disproportionately accrues to married American whites and Asians, at the expense of everyone else who is picking up a very large tab for their "lifestyle choice".

They do. RevDarko has performed five of them. I know three married gay couples, here in the Deep South.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-08-31 01:47 PM | Reply


Those were not legal marriages as stated by RevDarko.

Largely unnoticed during the debates surrounding same-sex marriages are their economic consequences, including the impact on government tax collections. It is well-known that a couple's joint income tax burden can change with marriage. Many couples, especially two-earner couples with similar incomes, pay a marriage tax because their taxes when married are more than their combined tax liabilities as single filers. This feature of the income tax suggests thatlegalizing same-sex marriages would increase income tax revenues, because gay and lesbian households are thought to consist primarily of two-earner couples. In this paper we estimate the income tax effects of allowing same-sex couples to marry. We use estimates on the size of the homosexual population, the percent of this population in homosexual relationships, the percent who would marry if same-sex marriage becomes legal, and the average incomes of these couples, in order to generate estimates of the revenue impact. Our calculations indicate that legalizing these marriages would lead to an annual increase in federal government income taxes of between $0.3 billion and $1.3 billion, with the likely impact toward the higher range of the estimates.



ntj.tax.org


Posted by YAV
* * * *

Ah. I see. Your report is from June of 2000, before Bush's tax reform eliminated the marriage penalty. Absolutely no way you can argue anymore that tax revenues will rise, unless you can somehow demonstrate that gays will be earning substantially more household income that more than replaces the tax lost by virtue of the Married brackets.

"Frankly, I think governemtn should get the hell out of the marriage business, but if they are going to remain in it, they need to apply it equally to same-sex couples."

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-08-31 01:51 PM |


The right for churches and clergy to perform marriages comes from the government---not the other way around.

And I'm saying, it's all wrong. It's a benefit that disproportionately accrues to married American whites and Asians, at the expense of everyone else who is picking up a very large tab for their "lifestyle choice".



Lifestyle choice. Nicely done.

BTW, did you know that one of the best ways to subsidize heterosexual marriage is to take advantage of the 10 year plan:

Person A marries Person B, divorces in 10 years.
Person A marries Person C, divorces in 10 years.
Person A marries Person D, divorces in 10 years.
Person A marries Person E, divorces in 10 years.
Person A marries Person F, divorces in 10 years.

Persons B, C, D, E and F never worked, or worked and make less in SS than Person A.

Person A works, receives a SS check of $1500/month. Person A dies. Persons B, C, D, E and F all get $1500/month, or $72,000 a year.

BBob,

Actually, the right for churches and clergy to perform LEGALLY RECOGNIZED marriages comes from the government.

As long as the government isn't asked to acknowledge the marriage, the a church (or clergyman) can perform a marriage for whoever the hell they want. This is why I have performed same-sex marriages. The government doesn't recognize them, of course, but they can't stop me from performing the ceremony.

$90,000 not $72,000. My original case had 4 10 year marriages.

101,

In that case that you're too stupid to recognize it, this is your post, which came right after mine on that thread.

"101,

"I don't give a flying fuck if you recall it or not. It happened and you clowns were once again wrong."

It happened because you say so? That's fucking original, and laughable. It's reprehensible that anyone would support the assholes in the executive office if they give a "flying fuck" about the welfare of the troops.

Pull your deluded head out of the sand and stop drinking the kool-aid. It wasn't the "leftist clowns" that sent the troops there in the first place.

Posted by ddenton

It's called google stupid.
The soldiers clamored for Under Armour, the brass said no. The lefties here spotted their panties over it as yet another supposed eample of the government being mean to the poor troops.
As it turned out Under Armour would melt and stick to/infect the wounds and the medics had a hell of a time with it. That was the reason for the banning of Under Armour.

You can waste your time looking at archives and/or google for the debates, I don't have to because I recall them.

Posted by 101Chairborne "

Look familiar? You didn't state who you were replying to, so your claim that you were speaking to someone else is likely bullshit, just all the other crap you spew onto these threads. Maybe you should take a little time to address the person you're replying to, or better yet, shut the fuck up entirely.

As far as getting dribbled, I believe the stats I quoted from the ballistic tests spoke for themselves. Even Judas recognized that you got spanked on that thread. Next?

" If a black man pays into Social Security his whole life, he will receive a benefit far less than a white man born the same day, even though their incomes were the same."

Not true, if all other things are equal as well. Your confusing the overall averages with the individual experiences. Just because blacks overall don't live as long as whites overall doesn't mean all blacks will suffer. A black woman who survives her equally-as-a-caucasian earning spouse will get exactly the same as a white woman, provided they live the same length. A gay white woman, however, gets nothing in survivor's benefits.

Person A works, receives a SS check of $1500/month. Person A dies. Persons B, C, D, E and F all get $1500/month, or $72,000 a year.

Posted by YAV
* * * *

Um, that's not the way it works. And that would be $90,000 a year anyhow.

You do bring up an interesting point, though, however inadvertently. No matter whether or not you manage to legalize gay marriage, there won't be that many takers. But it would be hard to deny polygamists their bite at the apple, in which case you would have serious problems. First, there would be a lot more people signing up for that--there are millions in the Muslim and Mormon faiths. Second, how do you decide on benefits then? Once you move past the theoretical into how you make it work in a nuts-and-bolts way, good luck putting that Humpty back together again. If you think Social Security--and especially Medicare--has solvency problems looming now, just try and extend benefits across multiple spouses. Easy to deny them in case of divorce, as we do now. Not so simple if the guy leaves behind six grieving widows.

Your = You're

Arrrgh!

RevDarko

You are correct. Let me rephrase my statement.

The right for churches and clergy to perform legally recognized marriages marriages comes from the government---not the other way around.

I would also add that it takes no special status to perform marriages if the government does not recognize them.

BBob,

Agreed. My status has no bearing on the same-sex weddings I've performed. The participants enjoy the fact that I do have that legal status, but they could have their wedding officiated by their favourite bartender if they so desired.

"But it would be hard to deny polygamists their bite at the apple"


When the Muslims and polygamists are marching in the streets for that right, we'll cross that bridge at that point. I haven't heard any of them asking for that right. Have you? Or is this another straw man of yours.

Should be, ". . . the average black man dies in the same year . . ."
Apologies.

Gotta go to lunch.

When the Muslims and polygamists are marching in the streets for that right, we'll cross that bridge at that point. I haven't heard any of them asking for that right. Have you? Or is this another straw man of yours.


Posted by Buffalo_Bob
* * * *

Yes, they are. But you can be excused for your ignorance, since you get all your news from here, or from 9/11Truth.org.

"I'm sure there was a whole lot of the lesbian adoption thing going on back when your wife was born..."

Okay...let's say she got raped and then raised the kid. Sheesh...stop dicking around like it's like it's an impossible scenario and address the point if you've actually got anything to add.

Oh, I left out something else - none of the ex spouses (B, C, D, E or F) can remarry. That might be what you're referring.

That's the trouble with generating a case to illustrate a point. Variables, assumptions, etc.

When the Muslims and polygamists are marching in the streets for that right, we'll cross that bridge at that point. I haven't heard any of them asking for that right. Have you? Or is this another straw man of yours.

"Yes, they are. But you can be excused for your ignorance, since you get all your news from here, or from 9/11Truth.org."

Posted by rightisright at 2007-08-31 02:22 PM |


Then let's see your links.

and midi......it makes sense that you would call our attacks on judicial activism all sorts of names, cause thats all you've got.......

Posted by bushlovertwo


That phrase is virtually without meaning ... it's merely a bumper sticker for the narrow-minded. Any time a judge sets ANY kind of a precedent, it could be called "activism". If you happen to like the decision, then of course you wouldn't use that term. If a law doesn't specically ban gay marriage, then how is it "activism" to say that the law can't be used to ban the marriages? Is EVERYTHING illegal until the law makes it ok? Please ...

The fact that your side CONSTANTLY resorts to the same tired talking points and slogans is why it is suffering right now among independents, and why you have become the source of even greater amusement to those of us who have always thought that you were, well, a bit less than deep.

BL2

The right doesn't ATTACK judicial activism---they DEMAND judicial activism. The right gets pissed when judges follow the Consitution set before them. When judges follow the law---that's when the right gets pissed---like at the judge referenced in this thread.

"Life expectancy for a black man"

Again, you're conflating averages with apples-to-apples experiences.

In scenarios where blacks and whites earn the same and live the same lengths, the blacks, whites, latinos, whatever, all get exactly the same payout for the same payin.

A black gay couple, or a white gay couple, or a latino gay couple, for the exact same payin, would have no survivor's rights whatsoever.

And even if we go back to your 'overall' argument, we're not talking a dimunation of benefits by, say 10-20% overall due to life expectancy, but by 100% due to one thing only: God's decision of sexual orientation.

All rights come from the government. The subject of this thread is a perfect illustration of that fact.

Okay...let's say she got raped and then raised the kid. Sheesh...stop dicking around like it's like it's an impossible scenario and address the point if you've actually got anything to add.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-08-31 02:27 PM | Reply


No, that's ok, the rape scenario is plausible. I withdraw my original post on the subject.

Did they catch the rapist?

All rights come from the government. The subject of this thread is a perfect illustration of that fact.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-31 02:39 PM | Reply

That is how it is viewed, but it is wrong.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The current bunch of pants pissers in charge would have you beleive that government gives you rights, but it does not. God grants the rights. The Constitution protects our unalienable rights against government abuses.

They do. RevDarko has performed five of them. I know three married gay couples, here in the Deep South.


What kind of sicko gets a satanist to marry them?

The current bunch of pants pissers in charge would have you beleive that government gives you rights, but it does not. God grants the rights. The Constitution protects our unalienable rights against government abuses.

what say you bob? you agree with that?

God grants the rights.

Whoever or whatever that is. I'm just glad it wasn't Allah or Yahweh.

Those two suck as Gods.

Isn't Yahweh Jesus's dad???

Rev mentioned something he can't say, "by the power vested in me by the state of Tennessee".

If you want the gov't out of it, then who legally could recognize the marriage. The marriage could be done by a church, but it wouldn't be recognized if the gov't 'got out of it'.

The gov't must be a part of it to make it legal.

So, the issue isn't for the gov't to get out of the marriage business. You want the gov't to recognize the marriages, or unions.

What you want is to change the rights granted to men and women who are married to also be available to men and men who are married.

You don't need the term married to make it possible.

I think most people who are against gay marriage are against the term 'marriage' being used.

If the States just gave the same rights and gave unions, some of the marriage people will drop off the argument.

Those remaining will be there because of morality issues they have.

You tightie-righties are always 'toe-tappin', aren't cha now?

Regarding the self-loathing comments continuously thrown at me by the same Rush-bots, here's the republican/christian definition of Self-Loathing Gay:

SELF-LOATHING-GAY:

A homosexual who is in a committed 15 year relationship. Who has been married to his same sex partner for over three years. Who owns his own profitable business, out-right owns his house and property (read - no mortgage dickwads). Who is active in his community organizing charity events for both gay and straight people. Who enjoys a nice night out with friends and family. Who pays his taxes on time, and fully. Who votes each and every election.

Now that's my life. But to nipple-sucking babies like 101-Ballsack and the retarded BushLoverTwo I'm Self Loathing.

Here's the truth: You have been so fooled by years of church programming and Nazi Brain-Washing Techniques (Yes, Virginia, the Nazis were Traditional Values-Loving Conservatives like you)that you just HAVE to believe gay people are less than you, awful and self-loathing. Otherwise, what does it say about your OWN state of mind and intelligence.

I know what it says: It breaks your paradigm. Your Jesus-Think. You label me with 'self-loathing' out of your own corrupted cognitive dissonance. Afterall, you actually believe Jeeeezus rose from the dead.

So, if you're CRYING because GOD LEFT IOWA and gays claimed some equal rights, to you I say;

BWAHAHAHAHAHA...

Jimmy Wallbeck

Where does God grant those rights? I missed that part. Got a link?

So when is senator Craig relocating?

I AM SO AWESOME!

I AM GAY!

AND

I LIVE IN IOWA!

my life is complete.

Iowa has the best literacy rate in the nation.

I am very curious as no bible passage I know covers human rights or for that matter democracy, so please dear christian smarty, quote a bible passage or show where god grants rights from the bible, or any religious document or shut up!

sky daddy didn't grant no human rights, period!

This just in!

Gay Couple marries in Iowa. World goes on.

Equal rights for everybody? what is this country coming to? the righties only want equal protections to their own kind.

Buffalo Bob answer Me this question. If Our Government is one of By The People For the people of the people and that the people are equal in all respects. How can one equal give another equal something when they all share it?? It's not like a King granting rights to their peasents and peons since a King or queen is supposed to be above the populace. How can You sit there and declare our rights come from the government??One equal can not give another equal more than they already posess.

Larry

Larry

You are arrested, and a Senator is arrested. Do you think you will be accorded the same courtesies as the Senator.

We are not equal, we are striving for equality.

All rights come from the government. No government--no rights. That's what the civil rights movenment was all about---people wanting the government to give them the same rights as other citizens. You seem to think that the civil rights movement was silly since they already had all the rights they needed, and they seemed to have pulled those rights out of thin air. No government no rights. No right to free speech---no right to freedom of press---no right to freedom of assembly---no rights. There are differences between abilities and rights.

Where do you think rights come from?

Larry

Our government is not "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Not anymore. Not for a long long time.

You are quite deluded Buffalo Bob. If it weren't by the people for the people of the people we would not have elections now would we. We wouldn't have a vote. Keep thinking Our rights come from the Government and I will be here to correct You.

Larry

my life is complete.

Good fer you, Red White & Blue!

Spud imagined that eventually folk'd get around to figuring out that in denying gay citizen's equal rights to marry under the law that they are, in fact, breaking the constitution.

Equal rights aren't special rights.

Gay marriage like all marriage helps to stabilise any society. Keeping homosexuality basically illegal is stupid, immoral and unethical, not to mention being an unneccessary security risk.

Seriously, think about that.

In a country where being gay is legal and accepted the threat of blackmailing someone over their sexual preference is rendered moot.

Spud luffs the folk asking how Gay Marriage will boost the economy.

These folk ever paid fer a wedding?

Is big biz!

Congrats RW&B on living in saner state now.

And you didn't even haff to move or nothing!

Be Well.

Our govt keeps forgetting it is only in power as long as we let them be. Sadly some of the people don't mind having their rights trampled.

You are quite deluded Buffalo Bob. If it weren't by the people for the people of the people we would not have elections now would we. We wouldn't have a vote. Keep thinking Our rights come from the Government and I will be here to correct You.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-08-31 07:52 PM


I've seen our last two elections. You think the will of the people was carried out?

I see you didn't answer the question. What a surprise.

Where do rights come from?

Where do rights come from?


Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-31 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

From Our Creator whomever You believe that creator to be. Buffalo Bob We have had this discussion before it is a waste of time dealing with You. I would get a better result from talking to a brick wall.

Larry

I've seen our last two elections. You think the will of the people was carried out?

I see you didn't answer the question. What a surprise.

Where do rights come from?


Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-31 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It's not My fault most Americans don't mind being fucked in the ass sans lube.

Larry

Larry

I don't think you should speak for any Creator. No Creator I ever heard of ever gave anybody any rights. Did your Creator give any rights? Got a link to where any Creator gives rights?

Larry

Looking for that link where the Creator gives rights? When you find it, lemme know ;-)

please, it is so important, where is link to bible saying that creator gave us rights, oh please oh please

Im tired of seeing all these judges legislate from the bench. How is it unconstitutional? They just say everything is unconstitutional without citing anything from the constitution. A city tries to crack down on its illegal alien problem, some dumb judge turns around and says they arent allowed to. Its about time we started ignoring these BS rulings and continue to carry out the law anyway. You dont forfeit the rule of law because some judge has a hidden agenda.

TheBull

The Judge answered your question:

"This court has yet to hear any convincing argument as to how excluding same-sex couples from getting married promotes responsible reproduction in general or by different-sex couples in particular. So far as this court can tell (the law) operates only to harm same-sex couples and their children," said the ruling from Judge Robert Hanson"

It helps to read a bit, You might want to start with the first post in this thread. It concerns your activist judges. Activist judges are judges who see things in Constitutions like "one man and one woman" when it isn't there. This judge can read. See if you can find another judge who sees things. You see, if it isn't in the State Constitution, it is unConstitutional;. That's how it works.

ladies and gentlmen.

its time for another thread.......

a judge has now reinstated the ban.................

haha. Like the toiletfags will really stop having gay toilet orgies in public bathrooms once gay marriage is legalized.
Funny how the gheys have been trying to convince everyone that they are decent people who should be allowed to marry and adopt children when all they do is have public toiletsex with strangers.
GAY TOILET MARRIAGES FOR EVERYONE!!!!

Like the toiletfags will really stop having gay toilet orgies in public bathrooms once gay marriage is legalized.

Why would that make any difference? The majority of men doing this are already married.

when it starts out "...those dems", or "..them libs", then you know what follows will show ignorance. just one of those common truths.

Craig's a cocksuker, but what about those dems
(really brilliant, huh?)

All rights come from the government. The subject of this thread is a perfect illustration of that fact.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-08-31 02:39 PM

Look at what I said less than 24 hours ago. Was I right, or what?

Or how rights are given to us by the government -- another of Buffalo Boob's favorite topics.

Posted by goatman at 2007-08-31 10:49 PM