| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Next we'll learn that those who hold to religious beliefs opposed to homosexual behavior are mentally unstable and therefore just not be allowed possession of firearms. That may be coming. As of today I bet that any military service is grounds for disarmament. Based on the concept that just going through boot camp gives you PTSD. You're not the same after, right? Blake, we agree that the most troublesome issues that gays have with the "old system", such as hospital visitation, property rights, etc. can be solved with Civil Unions. ( at least we agreed on a different thread, a while ago ) Obviously that's NOT going to be enough. There is a serious and very well funded effort to make "gay marriage" at least as equal, and for some "more equal" ( in the Animal Farm tradition, and from the same people ) The propaganda/shift in attitude has been with us for a while. Star Trek had the first "inter-racial" kiss on TV. Buffy the Vampire Slayer had the first Lesbian kiss on TV. Will and Grace had the first openly gay title character... ( Three's Company had a character assumed to be gay. That joke wouldn't sell in Hollywood today ) Me, I'd be happy with civil unions for ALL people who don't want the "traditional" marriage. I would strongly suggest Pre-nups for all non-traditional partnerships. since, as pointed out by the Justice ( mentioned above ) there is Not a long standing US tradition of law to cover it. But that's just the practical side. The political side is that this is a distraction, and a means of marginalizing the GOP, Conservatives, and especially Social Conservatives. They ( the leftists, Barry the neofascist & crew ) are using this issue to make you unpopular, and then ignored, in a world where "Will and Grace" is old hat and on TV the gay lifestyle is ASSUMED to be completely accepted by all except those to be mocked for their neanderthal thinking. I repeat. It Is A Trap. Does that mean that sodomy is the same as male-female sexual intercourse, and should be respected and supported as equal to the act that consummates the marriage between husband and wife? Another good question. William Jefferson Clinton didn't think so, and now it's an "accepted" part of high school life. ( DAMN IT! born too Soon! ) To be clear, my preferences are for willing, female participants in those activities, and I don't consider them as substitutes for intercourse, ( except in certain cases ) but as additions to a repertoire. As this is a family site, I will refrain from specifics. But, to answer the question, I have to break it down.. The same? No, but of equal responsibility and requirements for consent. I would apply a rape charge to the forcible act on most if not all activities considered "sodomy". ( legal definition varies from place to place. I am applying the "Everything but vaginal intercourse" doctrine of Texas Law, last I looked. Or was It Georgia? ) "...respected and supported as equal to the act that consummates...." Respected? Yes. Consent, responsibility, etc. Bill Clinton seems to have successfully broken that in popular culture. Darn him. Supported as equal? No. If you mean pushed by government. None of their damn business, what goes where, period. If you mean same legal rights? People get married and never have sex. It's the stable partnership we endorse by these marriage laws, not the sex organ activity. Consummation? Yes. Sorta. While some acts will not result in pregnancy, usually, the age is long gone where the old women of the tribe wait outside the newlyweds hut and spread the word to neighboring villages when the bride screams to announce the possible continuation of the line according to custom and by dowry. There's a bunch of baggage tied up in that assuming the woman is property. THAT still applies in some cultures today. The one that calls for crushing gay men under heavy stones, but it's fine to diddle an 11 year old boy. ( or is that Penn State Football? ) As "liberal" in a social sense as my attitudes may seem, I'm also for eliminating rapists from the gene pool. Child rapists with dull knives. Details not suitable for public comment. Suffice to say that the current laws requiring notification of the neighbors when a sex criminal ( which I may define more narrowly than some ) moves into town should be unnecessary. Tending to agree with Sifo on how laws restrict freedom. | ||
| Sifo |
Aesquire, You couldn't be more wrong. The first openly gay TV character was back in 1977 on Soap, played by Billy Crystal. | ||
| Aesquire |
I stand corrected. ( though Billy's character wasn't in the title. ) I'd forgotten about Soap. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
I think ellen was out before will and grace. what about Roseanne, there was a main character that was lesbian on there too, right? And I THINK Marci Darcy on Married with Children was lesbian on there. | ||
| Blake |
When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples. Yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don't have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them. | ||
| Blake |
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So it's just about the label in this case. Same-sex couples have every other right (in California), it's just about the label. | ||
| Blake |
Your Honor. I'm glad that counsel for the Respondents mentioned the Loving case, because what this Court ultimately said was patently obvious, that the colors of the skin of the spouses is irrelevant to any legitimate purpose, no more so than their hair colors, to any any legitimate purpose of marriage, that interracial couples and same-race couples are similarly situated in every respect with respect to any legitimate purpose of marriage. Family matters. Words have meaning. Interesting to listen to and read along with the arguments. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argumen t_transcripts.aspx http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argumen t_audio.aspx | ||
| Boltrider |
The passage of prop 8 was near five years ago, which I suppose is more than enough time for folks to "evolve" on this issue like Obama did. Very skeptical I am about this notion of gay marriage having popular support. If the support is there, it may well be a grudging, reluctant kind of support absent any conviction. And the reasons for that are many - avoiding grief and political expediency to name a few. Hardly a landslide victory, in populist terms anyway. | ||
| Hootowl |
Blake, "I appreciate your point of view, but I think you may be missing some points that deserve consideration. What happens when one spouse dies without a will? Who takes the deceased spouses material possessions and wealth?" Wills are a few clicks away at legalzoom.com. Might even be easier easier than a marriage license. "When the unfortunate case of divorce occurs, how ought it be adjudicated?" Simple. Marriage is a religious institution. Divorce is not. Some religions do not even recognize divorce, and rightly so. "What God has joined together, let no man etc." I imagine that includes judges. So let the state adjudicate divorce. No religious conflict there. | ||
| Blake |
In order to handle divorce, doesn't the state need some understanding of what constitutes marriage? | ||
| Blake |
What was your answer to the question about estate distribution in the absence of a current (since marriage occurred) will? No will, no inheritance for the wife? Even with a proper will in place, would surviving wives then not be taxed on what would then be deemed a typical non-spousal inheritance? | ||
| Hootowl |
"In order to handle divorce, doesn't the state need some understanding of what constitutes marriage?" I would imagine. If a church says two people are married, then it is so. That's the way it has been for thousands of years. No will? That husband must not have loved his wife very much if he didn't take the time to create a simple document that would protect his assets in the case of his untimely demise. And as far as death taxes go, I believe I said earlier that the tax code would have to be changed to reflect the withdrawal of government from the religious institution of marriage. Why is my death a payday for the government? How about the government doesn't get any of my money when I die, and I can give it freely to whomever I choose? Yes, I like that solution. I'm sure you'll agree. | ||
| Sifo |
Here's where I'm confused. Why does the government have to make a distinction between a couple that have had a religious union, and a couple that simply chooses to live together? | ||
| Blake |
Any church says that any combination of humans is "married" and that's it? What constitutes a "church"? Jeff, What about the non-religious, non-church married husbands and wives? They must be wed in an officially state sanctioned church in order to have their marriage recognized under law? Seems problematic for the separation clause of the 1st amendment, no? If the man/husband says there was no marriage, but the woman/wife asserts there was, what then? I just don't see how the state can be expelled from marriage and have folks' rights protected. At some point the state is obliged to define what constitutes "marriage". Texas has done that, and so have the voters in California. | ||
| Blake |
>>> How about the government doesn't get any of my money when I die, and I can give it freely to whomever I choose? Yes, I like that solution. I'm sure you'll agree. I tend to agree, but am unsure of a 100% elimination of the inheritance and gift tax on the recipients. We'd probably get a lot of the über wealthy immigrating to America. You're dodging the will question. I'd guess hat the vast majority of young married couple do not have wills. They don't need one as much since on one spouse's death the other takes ownership of his/her share of property. | ||
| Sifo |
We'd probably get a lot of the über wealthy immigrating to America. You say that like it's a bad thing. | ||
| Xb1125r |
why even bother with this argument. lets just not get married at all. just imagine all the lawyers on the unemplyment lines becuase they can't steal 1/3 fo the assets of the divorced people. this gives more freedom to the staight guys . the gay guys had it so good, no alimony, no goldigging wife. they keep all their money. I think straigh guys should start a movement on NO Marriage for anyone. besides even if you get married, if you don't get married in church your kids will still be bastards. | ||
| Hootowl |
You misunderstand, Blake. The government should not recognize ANY marriage. Marriage is a religious function. Non-religious people, or people who do not recognize that a marriage is the joining of a man and a woman before God, will not need to get married in a church or anywhere else. They will simply live together without any interference or blessing from the state. Religious people can continue to be joined before God in the same religious ceremony we’re all accustomed to. The state need not be involved. Tax benefits or other government benefits conferred upon a spouse are a violation of the 1st amendment, since marriage is a religious function. Let’s get the government out of that business, including conveying special privileges for those who choose to engage in a religious practice. Change the tax code so that it is alignment with the constitution and all the arguments for gay marriage go away. Let's treat everyone the same, regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, income bracket, or any other method of pigeon-holing that our illustrious politicians have come up with over the years. Flat tax on earned income, including from investments, payable in the year the income was generated. No deductions. No death tax. No inheritance tax. You earn a dollar, you pay 15 cents. It is the tax code that has made gays want their relationships recognized under the law. If that gets fixed, their arguments are without merit. I personally don't have much stake in the gay marriage debate, but it has opened my eyes to the fact that the government is meddling in religious affairs, and I don't like that one little bit. | ||
| Hootowl |
"You're dodging the will question" I haven't. I answered. Get a will. They're easy and cheap. If a person doesn't care enough about their loved ones to do so, that isn't my problem. I don't understand why you think it is yours, or why that is a sticking point in getting the government out of church business. | ||
| Sifo |
Tax benefits or other government benefits conferred upon a spouse are a violation of the 1st amendment, since marriage is a religious function. I fully understand this sentiment. I see a big problem though. We about 100 years of history accepting the governments involvement in marriage. That is a pretty solid precedent at this point. Once it's accepted as a governmental function, there's no 1st amendment issue, at least not directly. I would be curious to know what the legal discussions on this subject covered back in the day. I wonder what they said the definition of marriage was back then. I wonder if it was ever challenged in court. I don't know where to look to find the answers to these questions though. | ||
| Hootowl |
No one disputed the definition of marriage back then because very few if any people were openly gay in this country. It seemed, and still does to me, obvious that marriage is between one man, and one woman. Utah had to change the law in order to be accepted into the union because they allowed polygamy. But as you say, times change. The constitution hasn't changed in a long time though, and none of those changes did away with the very first change that was made, which was to ensure that there could be no official state religion I.E. the church should keep its nose out of state affairs, and that the state was to keep its nose out of church affairs. The fact that we've tolerated the intrusion for 100 years is simply another indication of how far we've strayed from our founding principles. | ||
| Sifo |
No one disputed the definition of marriage back then because very few if any people were openly gay in this country. Clearly, I didn't make myself clear. In this case I intended "definition" to be related to is it the domain of the church or state. Sorry for that confusion. The fact that we've tolerated the intrusion for 100 years is simply another indication of how far we've strayed from our founding principles. Possibly one of the lesser examples of government intrusion. Real freedom has been lost. | ||
| Crackhead |
The more I read the more I think you guys are starting to get it. Although it would be interesting if the religion of Crackheadism deemed Blake and Hootowl married. | ||
| Hootowl |
We have drunk from the same vessel on at least one occasion. We might technically be married in some cultures. | ||
| Hootowl |
Drank? (DR. Evil) I don't know words. | ||
| Sifo |
The more I read the more I think you guys are starting to get it. I don't think I've altered my position at all. I think you've said something about civil unions. Calling it a civil union so that gays can receive 1039+ government benefits still has the exact same 1st amendment issues as if you call it marriage. I'm wondering when people will get that. | ||
| Blake |
Tom, That we'd probably get a lot of the über wealthy immigrating to America if we ditched all inheritance taxes would be one positive aspect of such reform. What on earth gave you the idea I said it like it was a bad thing? Well I guess if they were all kin to George Soros... :/ Jeff, It seems impossible to ask the state to intervene in divorce, but have no definition for what constitutes marriage. If the state is going to play a role in adjudicating divorce, then how can it not have an interest in marriage. I think your premise that marriage is only a religious feature is just plain wrong. Non-religious marry too. Marriage, in addition to its religious character is also a legal contract. No one is forcing people to submit to said contract. They do it willingly. Anyone is free to just cohabit as they wish after marrying in whatever church they like, or wherever. Don't you think that the contract aspect is necessary to protect a wife from being used, abused, and cheated? Seems you skipped my post above asking a bunch of questions in that vein. The reasons for the state to be involved in marriage are very valid it seems to me. | ||
| Blake |
You keep asserting that marriage is a religious function, but it is rarely entirely a religious function in America, and in some marriages it is not religious at all. | ||
| Blake |
Oatmeal Porter? I do!  | ||
| Alfau |
Am I allowed to be concerned about your sanity ? |
