a bit apprehensive to post this
Comments
-
I agree.ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
Exactly
People treating marriage as something to promote their careers is bad
Meanwhile two people who love each other are barred because they are of the same sex
They rid my state of common law marriages also, out of fear of "gay marriage."0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:I've been legally married almost 4 years and with my husband for 20.
Kim Kardashian and Britney spears have been married for two years total to four different men.
Who is more of a threat to marriage?
but but but your filthy, successful, loving gay marriage means that my hetero REAL marriage that lasted only four years and was the absolute worst time of my life... it means that it wasn't... something... what was the question again?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:I've been legally married almost 4 years and with my husband for 20.
Kim Kardashian and Britney spears have been married for two years total to four different men.
Who is more of a threat to marriage?
Actually, neither.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Marriage is just a piece of legal paper.0
-
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
Yes.
That was part of what i found "interesting", because it shows there are several paths both to and from these differing states of equality.
Just to clarify though (i think you said you were from Canada), the 9th Circuit Court is a Federal court.
look at the map for 9 on the right ... these are broad districts that hear the appellate cases for all federal district\trial courts in their geographic area. They are the intermediary step between the trial court and the supreme court.
In my opinion the Appeals Court is used as a tool by the establishment to deny direct access of appeal to the Supreme Court ... but I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have a deep understanding of our legal system.
Anywho...
You are on point about the Circuit Courts being used for tactical political gain. If you look at most of the cases that impact women’s reproductive rights, education, and basic equal or civil rights, you will see that Circuit 8 and Circuit 11 handle most of the rulings in these matters. These are also the two regional areas where Congress has stalled President Obama’s nominations for replacement of judges.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.0 -
Thank you for mentioning these political obstacles which includes the stall of placing judges.0
-
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.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.0 -
know1 wrote: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.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 Rogan0 -
These fools are so wrapped up in what they think is morally right or wrong, and in reality it's no one's business. They are so scared all of their kids are going to become gay, that they will do anything to stop it at every level. For a country that is touted as being "land of the free", we are one of the most enslaved groups of human beings on the planet, and most of it is self-inflicted. You can hardly take a piss without getting approval first. I'm a Christian, and don't care if gays marry. It doesn't apply to me. I'd much rather have them be married, and set the example of a loving, monogamous, and faithful couple...that is the example I want for my kids.0
-
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?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 Lincoln0 -
Right," Liberals" are have been stating the use of $$$ against this is just a right wing ploy to soak up finances and its a waste of time and taxpayer $$.blackredyellow wrote: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?0 -
SweetChildofMine wrote: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 Lincoln0 -
mikepegg44 wrote:
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.0 -
know1 wrote: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:0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
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.0 -
know1 wrote:
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 nowthat’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 Rogan0 -
know1 wrote: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.
Not protect us, personally.0 -
mikepegg44 wrote:
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.0 -
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.0 -
know1 wrote: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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help