I just can't wrap my head around "debates" like this... The amount of money spent on this "fight" has got to be astronomical.
And the crazier, is that the majority of it has been spent by the people against gay marriage. Imaging spending billions of dollars on something that will in no way ever affect your life? Don't these people have hobbies or their own families to worry about?
Right," Liberals" are have been stating the use of $$$ against this is just a right wing ploy to soak up finances and its a waste of time and taxpayer $$.
I just can't wrap my head around "debates" like this... The amount of money spent on this "fight" has got to be astronomical.
And the crazier, is that the majority of it has been spent by the people against gay marriage. Imaging spending billions of dollars on something that will in no way ever affect your life? Don't these people have hobbies or their own families to worry about?
Right," Liberals" are have been stating the use of $$$ against this is just a right wing ploy to soak up finances and its a waste of time and taxpayer $$.
I think it's a way of using up resources, but more importantly a way to get people to the polls. We see how low the voter turnout is... if the republicans can get one of these ballot initiatives in place for an election, they can better get their their base excited enough to actually go vote.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
First off - I'm basically for people doing what they want. If they want to be married, I don't really care. I actually wish the government would get out of the business of sanctioning any types of marriages and let people live their lives.
However, for the SAKE OF ARGUMENT, one could say that there already exists a state of equal rights on this issue. Currently, all people have the option of marrying someone from the opposite sex. We're all equal in that regard.
It gets to be a slippery slope when you say that it's not equal simply because you desire to marry someone of the same sex.
hey pandora, your box is open.
I love a good slippery slope argument. and I would say that it is a slippery slope...but probably in the other way than you (for argument's sake) were meaning. Denying someone a legal marriage due to same sex status now could possibly turn into denying someone a marriage due to age, race, not having a high enough IQ, looking weird, having 6 fingers, giant foreheads, not being able to roll your tongue, or any other number of biological factors...all of these things...don't matter in the long run.
If someone wants to marry a carrot, a piece of celery, and a tutu...what is the problem...how does this hurt anyone who is in a loving, stable marriage? That is the part of the slippery slope here that I worry about. Marry 50 people if you want...if you are all happy and living your life the way you want...then it shouldn't be anyone else's worry what you do with your own life.
I meant that it's a slipper slope in a couple of directions.
I agree with you - let everyone marry any one they chose. Heck - even let people apply for some sort of legal protection from the government as a partnership, but other than that the government should get out of this business.
I was just trying to point out that technically, we all have equal "rights" in this regard. We can all marry someone of the opposite sex.
(and the word "rights" is in quotes because I personally do not believe that marriage is a right. It's a lot closer to a privilege, but even that's not quite right.).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
one could say that there already exists a state of equal rights on this issue. Currently, all people have the option of marrying someone from the opposite sex. We're all equal in that regard.
It gets to be a slippery slope when you say that it's not equal simply because you desire to marry someone of the same sex.
Which is technically true if not a bit mean-spirited and it does fly in the face of why some straight people claim they get married, which is for love...
Just because Michele Bachmann married a gay man doesn't mean all women should.
However, we're not looking at the rights of the individual here, we're looking the family as a unit... One of the cornerstones of their argument, that the family must be protected. And that means that whether you're talking about a couple of opposite-sex, white Christians like Michele and Marcus Bachmann or a couple motorcycle-riding, hard-rock-loving, girly-dog-owning men like me and my husband... Our relationships should be treated equally... Even if he and I married for love and they married to hide that he's gay and she's... Got a thing for foster-parenting young girls (28 of them, as I recall, none of whom have come forward to publicly support her).
one could say that there already exists a state of equal rights on this issue. Currently, all people have the option of marrying someone from the opposite sex. We're all equal in that regard.
It gets to be a slippery slope when you say that it's not equal simply because you desire to marry someone of the same sex.
Which is technically true if not a bit mean-spirited and it does fly in the face of why some straight people claim they get married, which is for love...
Just because Michele Bachmann married a gay man doesn't mean all women should.
However, we're not looking at the rights of the individual here, we're looking the family as a unit... One of the cornerstones of their argument, that the family must be protected. And that means that whether you're talking about a couple of opposite-sex, white Christians like Michele and Marcus Bachmann or a couple motorcycle-riding, hard-rock-loving, girly-dog-owning men like me and my husband... Our relationships should be treated equally... Even if he and I married for love and they married to hide that he's gay and she's... Got a thing for foster-parenting young girls (28 of them, as I recall, none of whom have come forward to publicly support her).
:roll:
I don't see it as mean spirited. I see it as stating something which you acknowledge to be true as well.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
First off - I'm basically for people doing what they want. If they want to be married, I don't really care. I actually wish the government would get out of the business of sanctioning any types of marriages and let people live their lives.
However, for the SAKE OF ARGUMENT, one could say that there already exists a state of equal rights on this issue. Currently, all people have the option of marrying someone from the opposite sex. We're all equal in that regard.
It gets to be a slippery slope when you say that it's not equal simply because you desire to marry someone of the same sex.
hey pandora, your box is open.
I love a good slippery slope argument. and I would say that it is a slippery slope...but probably in the other way than you (for argument's sake) were meaning. Denying someone a legal marriage due to same sex status now could possibly turn into denying someone a marriage due to age, race, not having a high enough IQ, looking weird, having 6 fingers, giant foreheads, not being able to roll your tongue, or any other number of biological factors...all of these things...don't matter in the long run.
If someone wants to marry a carrot, a piece of celery, and a tutu...what is the problem...how does this hurt anyone who is in a loving, stable marriage? That is the part of the slippery slope here that I worry about. Marry 50 people if you want...if you are all happy and living your life the way you want...then it shouldn't be anyone else's worry what you do with your own life.
I meant that it's a slipper slope in a couple of directions.
I agree with you - let everyone marry any one they chose. Heck - even let people apply for some sort of legal protection from the government as a partnership, but other than that the government should get out of this business.
I was just trying to point out that technically, we all have equal "rights" in this regard. We can all marry someone of the opposite sex.
(and the word "rights" is in quotes because I personally do not believe that marriage is a right. It's a lot closer to a privilege, but even that's not quite right.).
that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't see it as mean spirited. I see it as stating something which you acknowledge to be true as well.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.
Well it is mean-spirited and is the equivalent of playing keep-away.
When I say "protect" I mean things like allowing me to write him off as a dependent should he become unable to work and I provide for us both, or me to be his Legal next of kin should he be unable to speak for himself. Sponsor him for a green card so we can stay together.
that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now
As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.
For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.
On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
What we're really seeing is the death throes of the old guard.
They can write discrimination into the constitution all they want, within 10 years the people in all 50 states would vote to extend equal protection to my family.
Most likely if prop 8 was to be voted on now, it wouldn't pass.
There's a good chance that it will be on the ballot in 2 states this year, maybe 3. And I have a feeling that no matter how much money the catholic church and the Mormons pour into it via their front group "NOM," it won't do any good.
The battle is won, we just need to carry the dead off the field now.
As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.
For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.
On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.
A recent study showed that gay couples paid an average of $6000 more per year in taxes when they made less money and had access to fewer services and resources.
Us homos are tired of paying your way, either tax us less or treat us equally.
As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.
For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.
On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.
A recent study showed that gay couples paid an average of $6000 more per year in taxes when they made less money and had access to fewer services and resources.
Us homos are tired of paying your way, either tax us less or treat us equally.
Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.
And my comment was in reference to the fact that it's not really the government that's denying them considering they could access them if they made that choice.
Post edited by know1 on
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.
I agree with this.
And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)
The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now
As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.
For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.
On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.
my state taxes went down in MN. Our federal return is larger as a married filing jointly than it was adding together both of us filing single.
Plus all the other legal benefits and health benefits that we get simply for having a licensed marriage.
you bring up a good point though...and that is why I am so interested in the implications of the decision. Basically if the supreme court sides with a line of thinking like you expressed above they are saying that being homosexual is a choice that is made...David Cross said it best about that particular choice.
Which brings it back to the main point, individual rights...what are they in regards to access to the benefits given to those who are married?...and can the state's choose to deny access to certain benefits based on a definition created by the majority?
and I too believe that the government should not be in the marriage business at all.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.
There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.
But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.
Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.
And you have that right, don't you?
But we don't have the right to be taxed like a married couple. Even though we are one.
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.
There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.
But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.
Fair enough...I wasn't being antagonistic and was unaware you were way past the "considered" point
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.
There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.
But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.
Fair enough...I wasn't being antagonistic and was unaware you were way past the "considered" point
Oh I know that.
I'll admit it gets a bit old to have to keep reminding people of that, or correcting them when they call him my "boyfriend" or something.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.
I agree with this.
And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)
The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
Putting this specific issue aside, the courts do have to have the ability to overturn popular vote (and should at times). We've seen it in the past with laws against races or women. Just because a majority of the people who voted feel a certain way, it shouldn't supersede rights granted in the constitution of the country or the sate that they are in.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now
As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.
For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.
On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.
my state taxes went down in MN. Our federal return is larger as a married filing jointly than it was adding together both of us filing single.
Plus all the other legal benefits and health benefits that we get simply for having a licensed marriage.
you bring up a good point though...and that is why I am so interested in the implications of the decision. Basically if the supreme court sides with a line of thinking like you expressed above they are saying that being homosexual is a choice that is made...David Cross said it best about that particular choice.
Which brings it back to the main point, individual rights...what are they in regards to access to the benefits given to those who are married?...and can the state's choose to deny access to certain benefits based on a definition created by the majority?
and I too believe that the government should not be in the marriage business at all.
Just a point of clarification. I didn't say being homosexual is a choice. I said marriage is a choice. I think there's no disputing that whomever you choose to marry is your choice.
And I literally do not know why our taxes went up so much. Adding our refunds/payments the year before we were married, we came out basically even. After the marriage, we owed a net $3500 at tax time.
Post edited by know1 on
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.
And you have that right, don't you?
But we don't have the right to be taxed like a married couple. Even though we are one.
If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.
But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.
That's exactly it, yes.
But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).
Well, gay people marry for love.
Straight people, if I believe what I see on TV, get married to get big huge parties and lots of gifts... they get married for attention and to feel "special." So they can drop an average of $27K on their weddings that they're still paying for while they're in divorce court.
So they can parade down the street, holding up traffic and honking their horns on floats (usually a rented limo covered in paper flowers and streamers) waving "just married" signs.
All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.
Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."
Yes... I guess I could "choose" to marry someone I don't love (like straight people do) and get all those benefits (like straight people do) but I would like to think that marriage is more than that.
Something worth fighting for. But since you've never had to fight for anything, really... you'll never understand that.
(and while you're at it, get a better accountant. if you're paying more for being married, you're getting hosed.)
*I don't actually mean any of this but I'm sick and fucking tired of having straight guys debate the fine points of how I could choose to marry someone "if you want those rights" while I worry about my husband of 20 years being deported. And I'm not sorry.
If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.
That's exactly it, yes.
But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).
Well, gay people marry for love.
Straight people, if I believe what I see on TV, get married to get big huge parties and lots of gifts... they get married for attention and to feel "special." So they can drop an average of $27K on their weddings that they're still paying for while they're in divorce court.
So they can parade down the street, holding up traffic and honking their horns on floats (usually a rented limo covered in paper flowers and streamers) waving "just married" signs.
All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.
Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."
Yes... I guess I could "choose" to marry someone I don't love (like straight people do) and get all those benefits (like straight people do) but I would like to think that marriage is more than that.
Something worth fighting for. But since you've never had to fight for anything, really... you'll never understand that.
(and while you're at it, get a better accountant. if you're paying more for being married, you're getting hosed.)
*I don't actually mean any of this but I'm sick and fucking tired of having straight guys debate the fine points of how I could choose to marry someone "if you want those rights" while I worry about my husband of 20 years being deported. And I'm not sorry.
As crazy as it sounds, our ideology on this topic isn't probably as far off as it would seem on the surface. I'm only trying to point things I notice in the pro- arguments. By the same token, I disagree with a lot of the anti- arguments as well (sanctity of marriage? Please!).
(I had several accountants look at it and they came up with the same story. We are simply paying more taxes now than we were before. It may have to do with my charitable contributions now being spread across 2 people, but I don't think that's possible either).
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
(I had several accountants look at it and they came up with the same story. We are simply paying more taxes now than we were before. It may have to do with my charitable contributions now being spread across 2 people, but I don't think that's possible either).
Well why don't you "choose" to marry someone of the same sex and you can be taxed differently?
Since that's what you want.
And you won't have to suffer the embarrassment of buying feminine hygiene products at the 711, either. It's win/win.
I'm only trying to point things I notice in the pro- arguments.
And I'm tired of debating them. It's like telling a mixed-race couple that they could "choose" to marry someone of the same race if they wanted to be treated better by other people.
I don't want "those rights."
I want "those rights for my family."
And if you can't tell the difference, I was probably right in my seemingly absurd diatribe about Britney, Kim and the Learning Channel.
All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.
Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."
Spot on my friend. If anything is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage it's this shit.
Spot on my friend. If anything is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage it's this shit.
you'd be amazed at how many people roll their eyes and say "well, that's different" when presented with that, but when you ask "how is that different" they just look at you like this... :shock:
and, that has been the real challenge facing the Church, because
People keep forgetting that - no Church within the United States can stop gays from getting married in legalized States because Churches –DO NOT have the power to legally marry any couple, gay or straight - without a STATE issued marriage license.
The State’s told the Churches that the power to issue marriage licenses remains a State’s right . So on the one-hand, the States are for separation of church when it comes to maintaining their power and control, yet, on the other hand, the Churches are the perfect CASH cow for politicians to push their agenda.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
and, that has been the real challenge facing the Church, because
People keep forgetting that - no Church within the United States can stop gays from getting married in legalized States because Churches –DO NOT have the power to legally marry any couple, gay or straight - without a STATE issued marriage license.
The State’s told the Churches that the power to issue marriage licenses remains a State’s right . So on the one-hand, the States are for separation of church when it comes to maintaining their power and control, yet, on the other hand, the Churches are the perfect CASH cow for politicians to push their agenda.
Right, when its convenient for either parties to push their agenda on you. Im all for joining forces, however pushing oppression is not one of them. I know people who have been in relationships for many years and are considered to be "married" by families and friends. The thing is does it really matter? If you are in a long term healthy relationship with another human being isnt that the goal? Sharing the life with the person you love? The contract between two humans is essential part of life experience. I see nothing wrong with giving any loving couple the same legal rights. Besides, the sanctity of marriage is held within a loving sacred contract of two being regardless of what the world dictates.
The world is in the business of hating people who love each other, anyway.
Right, when its convenient for either parties to push their agenda on you. Im all for joining forces, however pushing oppression is not one of them. I know people who have been in relationships for many years and are considered to be "married" by families and friends. The thing is does it really matter? If you are in a long term healthy relationship with another human being isnt that the goal? Sharing the life with the person you love? The contract between two humans is essential part of life experience. I see nothing wrong with giving any loving couple the same legal rights. Besides, the sanctity of marriage is held within a loving sacred contract of two being regardless of what the world dictates.
The world is in the business of hating people who love each other, anyway.
YES to this!
And Prince, I'm glad you had that disclaimer at the end of your rant. Gotta admit that I agreed with some of what you said - but other parts left me miffed. We all aren't THAT much different.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.
I agree with this.
And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)
The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
Putting this specific issue aside, the courts do have to have the ability to overturn popular vote (and should at times). We've seen it in the past with laws against races or women. Just because a majority of the people who voted feel a certain way, it shouldn't supersede rights granted in the constitution of the country or the sate that they are in.
What right granted in the constitution does not allowing homosexuals to marry violate?
Comments
I think it's a way of using up resources, but more importantly a way to get people to the polls. We see how low the voter turnout is... if the republicans can get one of these ballot initiatives in place for an election, they can better get their their base excited enough to actually go vote.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I meant that it's a slipper slope in a couple of directions.
I agree with you - let everyone marry any one they chose. Heck - even let people apply for some sort of legal protection from the government as a partnership, but other than that the government should get out of this business.
I was just trying to point out that technically, we all have equal "rights" in this regard. We can all marry someone of the opposite sex.
(and the word "rights" is in quotes because I personally do not believe that marriage is a right. It's a lot closer to a privilege, but even that's not quite right.).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Which is technically true if not a bit mean-spirited and it does fly in the face of why some straight people claim they get married, which is for love...
Just because Michele Bachmann married a gay man doesn't mean all women should.
However, we're not looking at the rights of the individual here, we're looking the family as a unit... One of the cornerstones of their argument, that the family must be protected. And that means that whether you're talking about a couple of opposite-sex, white Christians like Michele and Marcus Bachmann or a couple motorcycle-riding, hard-rock-loving, girly-dog-owning men like me and my husband... Our relationships should be treated equally... Even if he and I married for love and they married to hide that he's gay and she's... Got a thing for foster-parenting young girls (28 of them, as I recall, none of whom have come forward to publicly support her).
:roll:
I don't see it as mean spirited. I see it as stating something which you acknowledge to be true as well.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting the family (outside of offering actual physical protection in terms of police, defense, etc.). That should be the family's job and business.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
that is a good point. I think this going to the supreme court will go a long way into defining what "right" there is to the legal and tax advantages of being married. If state and federal agencies are going to attach legal advantages to being married, it is strange that they can also deny someone access to those services based on WHO they wish to marry. Does that make sense?
I think we will see a 5-4 decisions overturning the 9th circuit, but I hope I am wrong. I will be VERY interested to read both the opinions, both the affirmative and the dissenting. I think this ruling will have an impact much more far reaching than we can see right now
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well it is mean-spirited and is the equivalent of playing keep-away.
When I say "protect" I mean things like allowing me to write him off as a dependent should he become unable to work and I provide for us both, or me to be his Legal next of kin should he be unable to speak for himself. Sponsor him for a green card so we can stay together.
Not protect us, personally.
As always, though, there are ways of viewing things from a different angle.
For example, you could say that the individual is choosing to deny THEMSELVES access to those services based upon who they wished to marry, because they have the choice of accessing them. There are lots of services out there that we all choose not to participate in for various reasons.
On a side note - I'm not really very sure how much of an advantage being married is from a financial standpoint. My taxes went WAY up after I was married.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They can write discrimination into the constitution all they want, within 10 years the people in all 50 states would vote to extend equal protection to my family.
Most likely if prop 8 was to be voted on now, it wouldn't pass.
There's a good chance that it will be on the ballot in 2 states this year, maybe 3. And I have a feeling that no matter how much money the catholic church and the Mormons pour into it via their front group "NOM," it won't do any good.
The battle is won, we just need to carry the dead off the field now.
A recent study showed that gay couples paid an average of $6000 more per year in taxes when they made less money and had access to fewer services and resources.
Us homos are tired of paying your way, either tax us less or treat us equally.
Well I'd like to be taxed like a single person again. My/Our taxes went up $3K just because we were married. There was no change to income, withholdings, etc. Of course, I could just choose to get a divorce if I wanted to be taxed like a single person again.
And my comment was in reference to the fact that it's not really the government that's denying them considering they could access them if they made that choice.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree with this.
And I also support gay marriage - unions? Is the choice of words semantics? (honest question)
The only thorn for me throughout all of this is not the issue itself, but the fact that a decision made by voters can be overturned. What's the point of voting...what will it affect next time?
Prince - another honest question. My guy and I have been together 13 years, consider ourselves married, probably like you and yours. We've lived and are living by the vows typically taken during the ceremony - health, wealth (or lack thereof), good times, etc. We also will be going the route of legal wills, powers of attorney, etc. Can you and your husband not take those legal routes without the formality of marriage?
Please don't take this as my minimizing your desire to have the right to marry.
my state taxes went down in MN. Our federal return is larger as a married filing jointly than it was adding together both of us filing single.
Plus all the other legal benefits and health benefits that we get simply for having a licensed marriage.
you bring up a good point though...and that is why I am so interested in the implications of the decision. Basically if the supreme court sides with a line of thinking like you expressed above they are saying that being homosexual is a choice that is made...David Cross said it best about that particular choice.
Which brings it back to the main point, individual rights...what are they in regards to access to the benefits given to those who are married?...and can the state's choose to deny access to certain benefits based on a definition created by the majority?
and I too believe that the government should not be in the marriage business at all.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ok so first, my husband is legally my husband. We're married in our home country of Canada and our state of california. We're not common law. We don't "consider" ourselves married, we ARE married. Twice.
There are over 1500 rights, resources, privileges, protections and responsibilities that are granted to legally married couples at the federal level that no amount of contracts and legal hoops to jump through can grant us, the one we're most wanting being me sponsoring him for a green card so we don't live under the constant threat of him being deported.
But there are many more. And after 20 years together, I think we have every right to demand them.
And you have that right, don't you?
But we don't have the right to be taxed like a married couple. Even though we are one.
Fair enough...I wasn't being antagonistic and was unaware you were way past the "considered" point
Oh I know that.
I'll admit it gets a bit old to have to keep reminding people of that, or correcting them when they call him my "boyfriend" or something.
Putting this specific issue aside, the courts do have to have the ability to overturn popular vote (and should at times). We've seen it in the past with laws against races or women. Just because a majority of the people who voted feel a certain way, it shouldn't supersede rights granted in the constitution of the country or the sate that they are in.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Just a point of clarification. I didn't say being homosexual is a choice. I said marriage is a choice. I think there's no disputing that whomever you choose to marry is your choice.
And I literally do not know why our taxes went up so much. Adding our refunds/payments the year before we were married, we came out basically even. After the marriage, we owed a net $3500 at tax time.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you're legally married as you say you are, then you should be taxed that way. So why aren't you? Is it because the Federal Government doesn't recognize the marriage. I really don't know the answer here.
But...to keep up my point, you could choose to marry someone of the opposite sex and get taxed that way if that was your goal (and I know it is not just like it's not my goal to be single again for the tax advantages).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's exactly it, yes.
Well, gay people marry for love.
Straight people, if I believe what I see on TV, get married to get big huge parties and lots of gifts... they get married for attention and to feel "special." So they can drop an average of $27K on their weddings that they're still paying for while they're in divorce court.
So they can parade down the street, holding up traffic and honking their horns on floats (usually a rented limo covered in paper flowers and streamers) waving "just married" signs.
All you need to do is turn on "The Learning Channel" to "learn" that marriage is a prize granted to the winner of a reality show. A bunch of desperate women compete and tear each other's eyes out for the entertainment of the audience and the winner gets to marry a millionaire.
Or turn on "The Learning Channel" and see Kim Kardashian who married so she could sign $30 million in endorsement deals. Or Britney Spears who got married while drunk to "do something crazy."
Yes... I guess I could "choose" to marry someone I don't love (like straight people do) and get all those benefits (like straight people do) but I would like to think that marriage is more than that.
Something worth fighting for. But since you've never had to fight for anything, really... you'll never understand that.
(and while you're at it, get a better accountant. if you're paying more for being married, you're getting hosed.)
*I don't actually mean any of this but I'm sick and fucking tired of having straight guys debate the fine points of how I could choose to marry someone "if you want those rights" while I worry about my husband of 20 years being deported. And I'm not sorry.
As crazy as it sounds, our ideology on this topic isn't probably as far off as it would seem on the surface. I'm only trying to point things I notice in the pro- arguments. By the same token, I disagree with a lot of the anti- arguments as well (sanctity of marriage? Please!).
(I had several accountants look at it and they came up with the same story. We are simply paying more taxes now than we were before. It may have to do with my charitable contributions now being spread across 2 people, but I don't think that's possible either).
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well why don't you "choose" to marry someone of the same sex and you can be taxed differently?
Since that's what you want.
And you won't have to suffer the embarrassment of buying feminine hygiene products at the 711, either. It's win/win.
And I'm tired of debating them. It's like telling a mixed-race couple that they could "choose" to marry someone of the same race if they wanted to be treated better by other people.
I don't want "those rights."
I want "those rights for my family."
And if you can't tell the difference, I was probably right in my seemingly absurd diatribe about Britney, Kim and the Learning Channel.
Spot on my friend. If anything is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage it's this shit.
you'd be amazed at how many people roll their eyes and say "well, that's different" when presented with that, but when you ask "how is that different" they just look at you like this... :shock:
and, that has been the real challenge facing the Church, because
People keep forgetting that - no Church within the United States can stop gays from getting married in legalized States because Churches –DO NOT have the power to legally marry any couple, gay or straight - without a STATE issued marriage license.
The State’s told the Churches that the power to issue marriage licenses remains a State’s right . So on the one-hand, the States are for separation of church when it comes to maintaining their power and control, yet, on the other hand, the Churches are the perfect CASH cow for politicians to push their agenda.
Right, when its convenient for either parties to push their agenda on you. Im all for joining forces, however pushing oppression is not one of them. I know people who have been in relationships for many years and are considered to be "married" by families and friends. The thing is does it really matter? If you are in a long term healthy relationship with another human being isnt that the goal? Sharing the life with the person you love? The contract between two humans is essential part of life experience. I see nothing wrong with giving any loving couple the same legal rights. Besides, the sanctity of marriage is held within a loving sacred contract of two being regardless of what the world dictates.
The world is in the business of hating people who love each other, anyway.
And Prince, I'm glad you had that disclaimer at the end of your rant. Gotta admit that I agreed with some of what you said - but other parts left me miffed. We all aren't THAT much different.
What right granted in the constitution does not allowing homosexuals to marry violate?