Bush renews call for same-sex marriage ban, Kerry also against same-sex marriage

[DarrylParsons]

Bar,

I don't get it. For an issue that is supposed to be unemotional, you're getting pretty emotional about it yourself.

I think the best solution is to abolish state involvement in all marriages. Let gays, straights, goats and donkeys have ceremonial marriages as they please but let's not get the government involved. When the government is involved I feel I have to be, too because the government is nothing more than all of us combined. If the government stays out of it, then I can be at ease knowing that I truly am not involved in any way.

 

[truthteller]

Look for something worse than AIDS to hit soon.

Bar, I am saying as whole it will affect society not individually. Go ask your boy Kerry why he is against gay marriages. Oh forgot too that 66% of the US are phobes along with me because we oppose faggots marrying.

I truly hate faggots now. Before I could care less how many cocks they take up the ass but forcing there perverted way of life to be the norm has gone too far.

 

[lander]

The "righteous" right of America likes to believe that their imaginary concepts such as nationalism, religion (including the "sacrement" of marriage) are "sacred" entities that would cause holy unrest if questioned.

That's fine, I suppose, as I can force myself to be as tollerant as they are intollerant, but it's the sad reality that the righteous are nothing more than child-like ignorants that shudder in fear when faced with "change?"

 

[Marco]

truthteller....who said the gays were forcing thier perverted way of life to be the norm?

What is normal to them is certainly not normal to us. "Normal" would appear to be a matter of personal choice.

Who the hell is to tell them or anybody else for that matter what "the norm" is?

 

[PatPatriot]

What everybody is missing is the real perversion of the constitution...I could care less if fxckin guy sucks on a shit stained dick.

The perversion lies where justices twist and reshape defintions to fit THERE politcal agenda.It is the will of four justices,not the will of the people that is the peversion.This was never brought before the people of Mass.
It is the only way democrats and liberals can get there Marxist agenda...because they will never ever win over the will of the people with their twisted logic,plain and simple.They have to count on having like minded justices...Which is why you DO NOT want John Kerry appointing justices.
Perverision of the contitution and constutional procedure is the REAL issue.

 

[barman]

DP: For an issue that is supposed to be unemotional, you're getting pretty emotional about it yourself.

BAR: I never suggested it was an unemotional issue. It appears to be very emotional for many of us.

For those who disapprove, it's a contest to see how many demeaning adjectives they can insert before the word "judges". This emotion is obviously a form of rage, though its source continues to elude me.

For those of us who approve and have worked on the issue in some way during the past decade, it's emotional, yeah. I'd call this particular emotion GLEE.

See, less than 12 months ago, homosexuals who engaged in sex were subject to criminal prosecution in many states, and now they can legally marry in one state, with more to follow.
It's an exciting change in world history.

And I happen to AGREE WITH YOU

that the state should get out of the marriage business. I also agree with your inferences in another thread that the tax code should be revised to eliminate breaks just because two people get married. I believe all wage earners should be taxed separately.

TTELLER, I'll give you credit for unashamedly showing your terror and hatred of gays. And I don't need John Kerry to waste my time with whatever odd explanation he might offer for why such discrimination should be legal. I'll just add it to the list of flawed policy positions from him.

And I'll keep my eyes out for that 'something worse than AIDS', since we all know that disease immediately multiplies when people of the same sex get married....I'm sure they were remaining chaste prior, like good little prudish conservatives teach.

PATRIOT would get points for his gratuitous scatalogical references, but we've already heard them in various forms too many times, so they're even more irrelevant to the discussion now than ever.

However he gets MEGA POINTS for being a smarter law student than the State of Mass, whose attorneys aren't appealing the ruling to the SCOTUS because they know the ruling was - though distasteful to them - legally correct.

Must suck (in a hetero way, mind you) that the writers of the Mass state constitution did not include language that would permit discrimination against gays. That would sure have made this whole case a lot simpler for those in fear to get their way.

 

[barman]

OH and finally, finally, TWO MORE BONUS points to Patriot for being the first person in my lifetime to associate support for gay rights with Karl Marx.

 

[truthteller]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I don't need John Kerry to waste my time with whatever odd explanation he might offer for why such discrimination should be legal. I'll just add it to the list of flawed policy positions from him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it's called trying to get votes. You see 66% of Americans are against faggots marrying. I guess 66% of the population are discriminatory too.

------------------------------

Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly for the White House

 

[DarrylParsons]

Wow! A point of agreement -- that IS scary

Are you serious about criminal prosecution for just gay sex!? That sounds hard to believe if it was consensual and in private.

As for the legalities of the Mass. rulings I'm not sure if it's so clear. What I heard is that they used a loophole in which it just never got explicitly mentioned that it had to be male and female. But I know there are areas of the law which talk about the spirit of the law and implied elements etc. They would likely investigate whether the judges ever assumed man and woman in other cases and that would point to the fact that they knew the law was intended to refer to men and women even if it never said so explicitly.

These indirect arguments could possibly result in a ruling against them at a higher level in the judicial system, no? I'm no lawyer but I have some familiarity with legal processes. Such a scenario does not seem far-fetched.

 

[kayaman+]

"What everybody is missing is the real perversion of the constitution..."

"...The perversion lies where justices twist and reshape defintions to fit THERE politcal agenda."

Can you say Patriot Act?!?!

 

[Oceans11]

When there is no more bigotry...I will kind of miss the raving nonsense of the righteous in threads like this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/3723071.stm


Ahhh, how refreshingly christian.
God must be so proud of his children.
http://www.godhatesfags.com

[This message was edited by eek on May 18, 2004 at 08:50 PM.]

 

[barman]

the last post reminds me that the intimidation factor of a post (from Patriot in this case) is greatly reduced when a simple word like THEIR is not spelled correctly...but I digress.

YES DP, until the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Lawrence vs Texas) last July, criminal sodomy laws still existed in Texas and over a dozen other states.

Lawrence was one of two gay men in 1997 who had the police break in on them after receiving a phone call about a burglary in progress. The cops cited them for sodomy and they were convicted of a criminal misdemeanor under Texas law. Their appeal took six years to go up the ladder. The ruling clearly put the other states' laws out of business as well.

With regard to the Mass ruling, the state of Mass did appeal to the SCOTUS for an emergency injunction intended to stop the legal marriages from going forward yesterday, but after a short review, the SCOTUS refused to enter the injunction.

This is not the same as their (heh) ruling against an actual appeal, but it's very unlikely that if they saw merit in the State of Mass case, they would not have at least done a short term injunction to hold off marriages while an actual appeal worked up the ladder.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the last post reminds me that the intimidation factor of a post (from Patriot in this case) is greatly reduced when a simple word like THEIR is not spelled correctly...but I digress.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey barman...what intimidates you is fact nothing else...nothing else intimidates more than truth...So you on pick on spelling to some discredit credibilty of the facts which is alwys the M.O. of the condescending left...nice try small fry.

 

[Oceans11]

Hitler and his buddies used the Bible a lot to justify the persecution of Jews.

The Bible is a pretty versatile piece of kit for bigots.

 

[barman]

PATRIOT, you are correct. Their is no reason to criticize someone when there simply trying to deliver a message from here to they're.

I take it all back, you are correct on all points.

The liberal, buttplug using, lube loving, anal angling, hershey highway driving, pole smoking, bath house loitering, marxist (still wondering where you came up with THAT?), activist, self-centred political, constitution mangling Judges are totally out of bounds here.

Please send me more information about your organization so I can help reverse this trend that left unchecked will destroy America.

 

[PatPatriot]

barman,my point is that afew judges making the decisions for the unwashed uneducated masses because we are not smart enough is very Marxist like of them.

I told you before I don't give a fuxk about homos and what they do....so you trying to frame me as homophobic to dilute my argument is laughable.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Bar,

In your world is the following possible simultaneously:

A) to believe in equal rights for homosexuals

B) to be against gay (state-sponsored) marriages

???

If not, then why do you think the poll numbers differ significantly when questions A and B are asked? Something like 80% are in favor of equal rights yet only 35% support gay marriages. Do you think so many people are just stupid or lying or schizophrenic or what?

 

[barman]

DP, as most state marriage laws are currently written, it appears that most cannot limit the arrangement to male/female partnerships only.

That certainly seems to be the case in Massachusetts at the moment, though many opponents would like to fob it off solely to the judges 'personal political activism'.

Regardless of who is right about that particular assertation, Mass is proceeding along, and this suggests many states will due to similar legal processes.

Like you have inferred in other posts (though I'm not sure if you strongly endorse it), I believe the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

I think the tax code should be revised and any other financial benefits that are exclusive to male/female partnerships should be revised to reflect more balance based on one person/one vote etc.

So no, I find it difficult, given how current laws are written, to see how the state can create a marriage for male/female along with all the state-related advantages such a bonding brings with it, and NOT allow same-sex couples equal access without their (the state) being complicit in practicing undue discrimination.


Now, what did I just walk into by giving that response?

 

[DarrylParsons]

Actually, your response makes a lot of sense believe it or not!?

If today a married straight couple with no kids gets tax breaks and other benefits, then I see no reason why a gay couple shouldn't get similar tax breaks and benefits. I would probably be inclined to give these benefits using some sort of "equivalent-to-marriage" status rather than marriage itself, though.

The reasons are that marriage has family implications and while yes, gay couples can have families via adoption etc. and in many cases these are perfectly good and justified, it is more complicated and so probably children would be the exception and not the rule. For a gay couple to have children you need another straight couple somewhere who abandons their baby, whereas for a straight couple to have children, well, we all know how that works

Some would say (and rightly so IMO) that there would be an element to it that encourages straight couples to abandon their babies so that gay couples could experience their "right" to parenthood. I put "right" in quotes because I consider gay rights to parenthood conditional on the a priori existence of abandoned babies, and not an unconditional right. One could easily imagine rogue straight couples without morals vacillating between 1) making sacrifices, working hard, and raising their baby (considered a "good" thing by conservatives -- go figure) and 2) the easy cop-out alternative -- just give it up for adoption because they'll be satisfying a growing demand from the gay community.

From the straight couples' perspective would you not think that raising the baby themselves would be favorable!?

Of course there are other factors like abuse -- getting criminals into the country, pretending to be gay just for the tax breaks etc.

But I think the main one is the family one I described above.

Abolishing state involvement in all marriages, however, seems like a fair approach that satisfies all parties involved so I would be all for that. Still, I don't see why the "equivalent-to-marriage" status to get the tax breaks and benefits plus the possibility for ceremonial (non-state-sponsored) marriages would not be satisfactory for the gay community!?

 

[Marco]

DP....Maybe I'm reading your thread incorrectly, but when you say "Some would say that there would be an element to it that encourages straight couples to abandon their babies so that gay couples could experience thier "right" to parenthood." .....

I would think that couples who give thier child up for adoption do it for reasons being that they feel they cannot provide adequately for the child or the couples life situation is such that keeping the child would not be in the couples or the child's best interest....I don't see people giving up thier child because some other couple needs one.....

Maybe I'm not seeing exactly what you're saying....

I do agree along the lines of barman in thinking about the one person/one vote thing. Why should married people get breaks or conversely get taxed more because they are married?