Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[BikerBabe 0]

I'm going to approach this "marriage vs. civil union" separate but equal argument a different, and perhaps more practical, way.

First, i agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage game. I also know that they ARE and probably always will be. Tax laws, inheritance issues, insurance, etc etc.

the fact is, currently there are laws on the books in California that specifically mention the word(s) "marriage", "married", "Spouse", "marry". These laws do not mention civil unions.

Now for all you "less government" types out there, let's look at this from a state budget perspective. If there are 100 laws on the books that mention marriage specifically, and to change one of those laws costs $10k (just using round numbers here for math), that means it will cost the government $1m of your tax dollars to change them.

However, if all you need is ONE law that allows marriage between any two consenting adults, then the government is only out $10k. Heck, tack on some extra for it being a new law rather than an existing one. say it costs $100k

$100,000 < $1,000,000 and i haven't even taken into account the amount of time it would take to change those 100 laws.

in a purely practical light, allowing the term "marriage" to apply to any two consenting adults is much more efficient and less costly than having to change ALL of the existing laws that concern marriage in the state.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[nerd137 0]

Quote

You really think polygamists wouldn't sue for their right to marry? Really? The groups that do it in secret have significant resources to pursue a legal fight for that right.

They might sue, but it's unlikely that they would do so successfully. They have other issues to contend with - like the frequent victimization of participants - which, I think, would kill their chances.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

The typical arguments apply to both, such as what goes on behind closed doors...it doesn't affect anyone else's marriage...

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

... I would prefer that he advocate making same-sex marriage legal at the federal level.

How would that be done? Create some kind of Federal marriage certificate? Would the States still be involved in marriage, or would it be entirely a federal process?

I'd much rather see the process devolved to the lowest level of government, rather than caught up in the ever-expanding juggernaut that is the federal government. If it was done at a county or city level, for example, it would be much easier for folks to travel to a permitting jurisdiction to get married.

Once it's at the federal level, all that needs to happen is for a majority of congress (the same folks who passed the Defense of Marriage Act) to decide to ban all forms of gay marriage and it's gone, assuming the president hasn't the political courage to stand up to them (and on this issue it's pretty clear that our current President does not).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

The typical arguments apply to both, such as what goes on behind closed doors...it doesn't affect anyone else's marriage...

OK, and those arguments apply to "regular" heterosexual marriages too. My marriage doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, and what goes on behind our closed doors is no one else's business.

If polygamists want to use those arguments to sue for marriage rights, then they can, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Yes this certainly is an issue. It is too bad we have backed ourselves into a corner. Right now I am looking at it in more of a theoretical ideal point of view, rather than practical.

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

>Everyone can get married.

Just as all blacks could get married in 1950 in Georgia.

Race is totally different than an emotional connection. You are again comparing apples to carrots. Or oranges, take your pick.

Absolutely ridiculous! You aren't even making sense! In the example black people, who are born black, are unable to marry white people they have an emotional connection with. In the present day gay people, who are born gay, are unable to marry other gay people they have an emotional connection with. The situation is almost exactly the fucking same, except in the present day it will always stop the gay person from being able to marry who he/she wants to.

Quote

>Do away with those benefits and the crys about inequality would diminish to a
>whisper.

No, they wouldn't. Yes, it would.

Your opinion alone. And you're most definitely wrong!

Quote

All of the situations you mentioned could be easily resolved with a provision for a "civil union". Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman. Since you are in favor of same-sex marriages, you must also be in favor of brother-sister marriages, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, etc. as long as offspring are not produced. After all, the only thing "wrong" with them is the public perception, right?

Nonsensical. Tell me where your definition of marriage excludes men and women who are related? And since you're in favour of civil unions for gays, you must also be in favour of civil unions for those people you mentioned above. Are you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

You fail yet again to understand the simplist of concepts. I don't advocate banning anything based on sexual preference, race, eye color, favorite tv program, or any other reason. Gays CAN get married...just not to persons of the same sex!

Blacks could get married, just not to someone of the opposite race.

Quote

They have equal rights. You want them to have special rights.

Oh dear sir! You contradict yourself most egregiously! How could it possibly be that allowing gays to marry would give them special rights? After all, you would be just as free to marry someone of the same sex as they are. Your self-contradiction really, really shows your true colours in this debate.

Quote

Though i would prefer they call it a civil union and leave the word "marriage" to man-woman unions I wouln't feel it's the end of the world if it didn't work out that way.

Oh so many people who are oh so protective of a word they don't even seem to know the origin of.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

Quote

You seem to be blissfully unaware that in the society whos language we get the word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable. Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?

Really? Guess again, read THIS. It is a little unknown document called the United States Constitution and Amendments. Oh, then there is this other document called the Declaration of Independence. Now for the question, show me where "marriage" is used?

Uh, wow. So apparently Mike, you either think that the US constitution is the origin of the word 'marriage' or that that the US constitution and decleration of independance are the sole articles of law by which the USA is governed. Hate to tell ya bud, but you're dead wrong on both.

I'll ask again, you say that the word marriage is solely religious - do you know where it comes from? Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?

Quote

Quote

Your precious word, which you don't understand the origin of anyway, would still be applied to gay couples in exactly the way you want to prevent, and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.

Wrong again. I want it removed from the power of government. That has nothing to do with the religious side of the issue. If it is removed from government then that is exactly what I want.

So let me get this straight - you don't care if gays can get married, in marriage ceremonies, and use the word marriage. You don't care if gays can get the exact same benefits from government recognised unions as straight people can. You only care that the government calls those government recognised unions marriages, because of some misguided idea about where the word marriage originates and what it means.

Dude, that is petty as hell.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,996]

> I am OK with that, but same sex marriage advocates know that the
> general public isn't OK with it, so they want to deflect any effort to associate
> the issues because it hurts their cause.

I think that's as valid as the people who argued that allowing interracial marriages would lead to having to allow women to marry monkeys. Yet here we are, almost 50 years later, and monkey-husbands haven't become a big problem here in the US.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What does polygamy have to do with same-sex marriage?

The typical arguments apply to both, such as what goes on behind closed doors...it doesn't affect anyone else's marriage...

OK, and those arguments apply to "regular" heterosexual marriages too. My marriage doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, and what goes on behind our closed doors is no one else's business.

If polygamists want to use those arguments to sue for marriage rights, then they can, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal.

Yes, polygamists can use these arguments to support their cause, but they know that there is no chance of them getting laws changed, the general public isn't even close to supporting their right to marry more than one. However, same sex marriage advocates are close, and have in some places succeeded. After that, they can ride on the precedent.

In the quest to remove the discrimination against some, I say we should not exclude the others.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,996]

>Your position on such matters doesn't influence many others. For
>Obama to take such an approach is quite different.

From the point of view of people he may influence through his opinions - I agree.

>Why shouldn't the Joe six-back voter that doesn't feel strongly about
> it take a cue from the president - if he thinks marriage is between a man
> and a woman, then so do I.

That's fine. Feel free to define your entire set of political opinions from what the president believes. Up to you. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves (as, apparently, does around half the country.)

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

> I am OK with that, but same sex marriage advocates know that the
> general public isn't OK with it, so they want to deflect any effort to associate
> the issues because it hurts their cause.

I think that's as valid as the people who argued that allowing interracial marriages would lead to having to allow women to marry monkeys. Yet here we are, almost 50 years later, and monkey-husbands haven't become a big problem here in the US.

That is a really crappy analogy!

Are you suggesting there is no significant difference once marriage across species is the issue? Also, there are people that would like to have polygamist rights, is there a group seeking inter-species marriage rights?

Really crappy attempt at deflection. It implies that no examination of future consequences/precedent should be considered?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>Why shouldn't the Joe six-back voter that doesn't feel strongly about
> it take a cue from the president - if he thinks marriage is between a man
> and a woman, then so do I.

That's fine. Feel free to define your entire set of political opinions from what the president believes. Up to you. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves (as, apparently, does around half the country.)

I DON'T ADVOCATE THIS POSITION.

I am emphasizing that Obama is an 'enabler' of others that want to hold that position.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I am against same sex marriage but only because of the name, in my mind marriage is only between a man and woman. What I think should happen, is that the state should only issue civil unions, to both hetero and homo couples, and everything will be perfectly fair. It would be up to the couples to assign themselves the word "married" and not the state. If a same sex couple said they were "married" I would disagree, but technically nobody would be married according to the state. Let the individuals decide what they want to call themselves, not the state.

Anyways, I think this is as fair as it will every get, while satisfying the greatest majority.

I concur with your idea.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,996]

>That is a really crappy analogy!

Yep. Slippery slope arguments frequently are.

>Are you suggesting there is no significant difference once marriage
> across species is the issue?

People in the 1950's, desperate to prevent interracial marriages, did in fact conflate interracial marriages with bestiality - just as today, same-sex marriage opponents conflate gay marriage with bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia. As you pointed out, all crappy analogies.

[billvon 2,996]

> If it was done at a county or city level, for example, it would be much easier
>for folks to travel to a permitting jurisdiction to get married.

But much harder for anyone to travel after they were married. Imagine the byzantine regulations if each of the tens of thousands of towns and the cities in the US had to decide on a case by case basis if your marriage was valid within their city limits.

"Sandusky, Ohio? Sorry, we don't recognize their marriages because of that incident with that one priest some years back. You can't pick up your child from the hospital until his legal mother comes to get him."

[wmw999 2,452]

I like it too, except for the caveat that BikerBabe brought up -- i.e. that there are a lot of laws that mention marriage, and the cost of updating them to say "civil union" would not be inconsequential.
Of course, if an overarching law that said "where a law says marriage we will now apply all that stuff (technical term alert) to civil union" could be legal, that might take care of it.

There would be the whole issue of "common law civil union" to deal with as well. It's tough to change something that's deeply and culturally intertwined with well-established systems. Just ask any programmer who has to deal with old spaghetti code

And think of how it would piss off some folks once the more liberal churches begin to sanction marriages

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

In fact I am OK with same sex marriage, but think any redefinition of marriage will inevitably allow polygamy and incest.

I don't think anyone is making a case for either. I have never in my entire life seen ANYONE try to even suggest legalizing either. Never. Not once.

I ONLY see it being used as a straw-man argument being made by anti-gay marriage forces.

50 years ago nobody had ever heard of gay marriage. So there.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Neither heterosexuals nor gays are allowed, in California, to marry a person of the opposite sex. It's actually a very simple concept.

apparently.

so simple you couldn't even keep it straight.

But rejoice in knowing that when the gays succeed, you will now have the right to marry a man if you ever get over your commitment issues.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Fixed it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[quade 4]

Quote

Yet here we are, almost 50 years later, and monkey-husbands haven't become a big problem here in the US.

I dunno!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

What part of that don't you understand?

What part of heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person the WISH to marry and heterosexuals are not don't you understand. Once again you are resorting to a completely disingenuous argument to defend an undefendable position.

All people are allowed to marry anyone they choose just as long as that person is of the opposite sex. Straight or gay, it doesn't matter. A heterosexual may well wish to marry someone of the same sex (why, I don't know) but they can't anymore than a gay can.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DARK 0]

Quote

While I think what you just said is sad and downright mean, I respect the fact that at least you openly admit that you would rather see others denied rights that you have just because you don't agree with them. It would be nice if others here had the balls to do the same.

he is saying everyone should have the same rights under the law, isnt that what the homosexuals want?

i am completely pro same sex weddings/civil unions whatever you want to call them but besides use of a word what you quoted does not deny any rights.

that word is typically a religous idea, if the homosexuals think that by changing the law they are going to all of a sudden be allowed have big massive church weddings they are dillusional. the catholic church or the protestant church or any other major division of christianity i can think of is not going to allow same sex marriages. if thats what you are fighting for then holding referendums or going to the supreme court is a waste of time

so lets assume that is not what you are looking for and you simply want the same rights as anyone else as regards being recognised as life partners and all the legal rights and responsibilities come with it. whats the problem with civil unions?

in ireland at least every marriage is a civil union. just because you stand in front of a priest dosnt mean you are married in the eyes of the state(which is actually what matters)

[billvon 2,996]

>50 years ago nobody had ever heard of gay marriage. So there.

The first law allowing gay marriage was passed in 342 as part of the Theodosian Code in Rome.

[LongWayToFall 0]

I agree with your position, but your argument is retarded. Hetero=opposite sex. We have this now. Homo=same sex. This is what is being debated.