(02-07-2012 01:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:39 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Don't interpret any of this as for/against gay marriage, but:

-This would have gone to the Supreme Court no matter this court's opinion.
-I don't see a federal right to marriage.
-Not sure how it is a civil rights issue either.
-The govt. shouldn't have it's hand in the private lives of its citizens. (Shouldn't care who marries who, gay or straight).

Remove the tax incentives to marriage by eliminating the IRS, moving to a flat/FairTax and every other "benefit" to marriage/unions can be handled by a contract. Leave the word "marriage" to the churches. If one would like to grant marriages to same-sex couples, then good for them.

there are only 2 fair options...

1 (and i think best) is to get government OUT of marriage...call it a civil union (for the rights) and let the people decide who's married.

2 level the playing field so gay folks can marry just like their straight counterparts

FIFY

You guys have absolutely no clue about history.

(02-07-2012 01:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:31 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm shocked, shocked to find the 9th Circuit made this ruling.

Fine print: I voted against Prop 8 and think that government having a role in "marriage" is useless. Civil unions for everyone and benefits, etc. based on the CU. Marriage for those folks who choose, in the venue of their choosing, conducted by the officiant of their choosing, with NO legal entanglements necessary.

Heh, right. No legal entanglements from marriage. Sorry Brookes, but the history of marriage is largely driven to eliminate legal entanglements and confusion (e.g., inheritance, succession, property rights, custodial rights...).

Your vision in this instance doesn't match well with history.

Don't care. I don't think there are any legal issues that can't be structured fairly with a civil union. It seems to me that at least 50% of the marriage debate is spiritual in origin. I think we'd be better off removing that connection.

Unless the objection is not to "marriage" but to same sex couples benefiting from the same streamlining of legal issues you list above. That's a different debate.

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  i hope this issue goes to the Supreme Court so this can and will be legalized in ALL 50 States

Unless Anthony Kennedy has told you, personally, how he intends to vote on this, you cannot possibly know what the Supreme Court "will" do in this case.

(02-07-2012 01:45 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Linky...

See link

Sorry, "separate but equal" doesn't work. It's going to be marriage.

Again...your version of freedom is offensive and ignorant. Civil unions would be equal....calling it a different name isn't separate.

As for this decision, I really don't care. I lean strongly towards the side that says make everything a civil union....let churches have marriage ceremony if the couple (and church) so wishes.

However, to play devil's advocate a bit, as is common when this type of discussion is brought up....

What about 3 adults deciding to marry each other? Will the government grant that "right" as well? Who gets to take advantage of the government benefits associated with "marriage"? All of them? What about 4...or 8?

My point is that more government involvement is a slippery slope. Small federal government for me please.

(02-07-2012 01:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:39 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Don't interpret any of this as for/against gay marriage, but:

-This would have gone to the Supreme Court no matter this court's opinion.
-I don't see a federal right to marriage.
-Not sure how it is a civil rights issue either.
-The govt. shouldn't have it's hand in the private lives of its citizens. (Shouldn't care who marries who, gay or straight).

Remove the tax incentives to marriage by eliminating the IRS, moving to a flat/FairTax and every other "benefit" to marriage/unions can be handled by a contract. Leave the word "marriage" to the churches. If one would like to grant marriages to same-sex couples, then good for them.

there are only 2 fair options...

1 (and i think best) is to get government OUT of marriage...call it a civil union (for the rights) and let the people decide who's married.

2 level the playing field so gay folks can marry just like their straight counterparts

FIFY

You guys have absolutely no clue about history.

Careful, Memphis! Torch is huffing and puffing.

(02-07-2012 01:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:36 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:28 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...more importantly, it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution...if you're married in one State...it MUST be recognized by ALL States.

i hope this issue goes to the Supreme Court so this can and will be legalized in ALL 50 States

Yep. It's gonna happen. Very hard to argue how this is constitutional.

Now its clear you're an angry, gay black man...with an axe to grind. Get over it.

what if he is? (ant saying you are or aren't) he would have the same rights as everyone else.

The point is, he does have those same right. Exactly the same. Identically the same. Duh.

nope...the SECOND the government started granting rights to married couples...same-sex marriage became a civil rights issue...you can't deny rights to someone because they want to share their life with someone of the same sex.

Quote:..and that should include the right to marry the person you love,

Nobody currently has that right...accept they do...a man and a woman who love each other can marry and enjoy government benefits...that makes same-sex marriage a civil rights issue

Quote:and enjoy all the government rights that come with it.

W/o the obligations? what obligations do governments require for marriage?

(02-07-2012 01:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  i hope this issue goes to the Supreme Court so this can and will be legalized in ALL 50 States

Unless Anthony Kennedy has told you, personally, how he intends to vote on this, you cannot possibly know what the Supreme Court "will" do in this case.

I will be stunned if Kennedy votes with the conservatives on this issue. Obviously it could happen, and that would be a setback.

However, ultimately, whether next year, 5 years or 10 years from now, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. The shift of public opinion is moving in that direction, dramatically. We shouldn't decide civil rights on a public vote, but it's undeniably important when it comes to the practical matter of political pressure, electing representatives, appointing judges, etc. Young people are in favor of gay marriage by a massive margin; as the years go by, it will become more and more part of everyday culture and life. If the SCOTUS doesn't make it legal in one fell swoop, then you'll see it slowly, state by state, until another SCOTUS does it.

Kennedy sees that as well. It's only a matter of time; now, or in the future.

(02-07-2012 01:51 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  As for this decision, I really don't care. I lean strongly towards the side that says make everything a civil union....let churches have marriage ceremony if the couple (and church) so wishes.

However, to play devil's advocate a bit, as is common when this type of discussion is brought up....

What about 3 adults deciding to marry each other? Will the government grant that "right" as well? Who gets to take advantage of the government benefits associated with "marriage"? All of them? What about 4...or 8?

My point is that more government involvement is a slippery slope. Small federal government for me please.

Interesting question...why is polygamy still illegal? And should they receive the same benefits as a couple of married/civilly unified? people?

(02-07-2012 01:55 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:51 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  As for this decision, I really don't care. I lean strongly towards the side that says make everything a civil union....let churches have marriage ceremony if the couple (and church) so wishes.

However, to play devil's advocate a bit, as is common when this type of discussion is brought up....

What about 3 adults deciding to marry each other? Will the government grant that "right" as well? Who gets to take advantage of the government benefits associated with "marriage"? All of them? What about 4...or 8?

My point is that more government involvement is a slippery slope. Small federal government for me please.

Interesting question...why is polygamy still illegal? And should they receive the same benefits as a couple of married/civilly unified? people?

if you get the government out of marriage...it would be up to them to find a church to do it...i think the conservatives focus on it so damn much because the muslims do it...and we all know conservatives see muslims in their nightmares.

(02-07-2012 01:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Great news? Right decision? Wow, you really are illiterate.

The courts go beyond their intended purpose and destroy the will of the citizens. History hasn't shown tyranny to be pleasant.

civil rights aren't to be voted on...if they were woman wouldn't be able to vote...interracial marriage would be illegal...and the sodomy laws would still exist.

it's easy for 90% of the population (straight) to hold down the 10% (gay)

and before you complain those are rough numbers.

I had no clue that 2 or 3 rounded up to 10..

(02-07-2012 02:01 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:55 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:51 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  As for this decision, I really don't care. I lean strongly towards the side that says make everything a civil union....let churches have marriage ceremony if the couple (and church) so wishes.

However, to play devil's advocate a bit, as is common when this type of discussion is brought up....

What about 3 adults deciding to marry each other? Will the government grant that "right" as well? Who gets to take advantage of the government benefits associated with "marriage"? All of them? What about 4...or 8?

My point is that more government involvement is a slippery slope. Small federal government for me please.

Interesting question...why is polygamy still illegal? And should they receive the same benefits as a couple of married/civilly unified? people?

if you get the government out of marriage...it would be up to them to find a church to do it...i think the conservatives focus on it so damn much because the muslims do it...and we all know conservatives see muslims in their nightmares.

Um..No. My point was...where does this end? How far can we push this issue? Only in your mind would Muslims enter the equation. I was testing the waters by directing the question at the Liberals on here trying to see how they felt about a man having multiple wives/husbands?

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I was testing the waters by directing the question at the Liberals on here trying to see how they felt about a man having multiple wives/husbands?

I'm not really a liberal, but this doesn't bother me. What do I care?

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Can we skip this whole argument by citing consent? Or do we have to go down this road anyway?

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I was testing the waters by directing the question at the Liberals on here trying to see how they felt about a man having multiple wives/husbands?

I'm not really a liberal, but this doesn't bother me. What do I care?

What about marrying animals or children with parents consent? What about their RIGHTS?

(02-07-2012 01:54 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  i hope this issue goes to the Supreme Court so this can and will be legalized in ALL 50 States

Unless Anthony Kennedy has told you, personally, how he intends to vote on this, you cannot possibly know what the Supreme Court "will" do in this case.

I will be stunned if Kennedy votes with the conservatives on this issue. Obviously it could happen, and that would be a setback.

However, ultimately, whether next year, 5 years or 10 years from now, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. The shift of public opinion is moving in that direction, dramatically. We shouldn't decide civil rights on a public vote, but it's undeniably important when it comes to the practical matter of political pressure, electing representatives, appointing judges, etc. Young people are in favor of gay marriage by a massive margin; as the years go by, it will become more and more part of everyday culture and life. If the SCOTUS doesn't make it legal in one fell swoop, then you'll see it slowly, state by state, until another SCOTUS does it.

Kennedy sees that as well. It's only a matter of time; now, or in the future.

Can somebody get me the list of "Civil Rights"?

(02-07-2012 02:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Great news? Right decision? Wow, you really are illiterate.

The courts go beyond their intended purpose and destroy the will of the citizens. History hasn't shown tyranny to be pleasant.

civil rights aren't to be voted on...if they were woman wouldn't be able to vote...interracial marriage would be illegal...and the sodomy laws would still exist.

it's easy for 90% of the population (straight) to hold down the 10% (gay)

and before you complain those are rough numbers.

I had no clue that 2 or 3 rounded up to 10..

the single most comprehensive study i've read was the janus report on sexual behavior done in 1993...they concluded 9% of men...5% of females...but when folks talk about gay...it always seems to come back to men.

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

i honestly have no issue with polygamy...

kids and animals don't have the ability to understand their own sexuality...therefore, they cannot consent to sex.