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