California's same-sex marriage battle


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

California's same-sex marriage battle

Postby gh » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:16 am

Here we go, politics and religion wrapped up in the same package:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: California's same-sex marriage battle

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:30 am

gh wrote:Here we go, politics and religion wrapped up in the same package

Silly me thinking there was a separation between the two. I can't fathom why religious types feel they have to foist their definition of marriage on a secular government. Why can't marriage be what the legislature defines it to be? How does same-sex marriage preclude the religious right from their own 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: California's same-sex marriage battle

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:35 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:Here we go, politics and religion wrapped up in the same package

Silly me thinking there was a separation between the two. I can't fathom why religious types feel they have to foist their definition of marriage on a secular government. Why can't marriage be what the legislature defines it to be? How does same-sex marriage preclude the religious right from their own 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'?


Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: California's same-sex marriage battle

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:38 am

Pego wrote:Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?

And I'm a Christian in a Christian nation, big whup. That don't give me no reason to demand others think as I do (think, that is - well, I do think, sometimes, but not like 'they' do!)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:50 am

Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: California's same-sex marriage battle

Postby bad hammy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:54 am

Pego wrote:Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?

Yes, but this is here in California. We are all godless heathens.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: California's same-sex marriage battle

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:23 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:Because we are a Christian nation. Don't you know anything?

And I'm a Christian in a Christian nation, big whup. That don't give me no reason to demand others think as I do (think, that is - well, I do think, sometimes, but not like 'they' do!)


That is not what I read daily in letters to the editor in the Wausau Daily Herald.
Christian nation-God's laws, not of those godless socialists that want to dismantle Christianity, force women to abort their babies and nationalize all the property. Oh yes, confiscate all the guns.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:30 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.

They do't have to support it. They just have to let the states decide issues like that. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a federal issue.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby mump boy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:33 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.


of course they say that, it's politically impossible to say anything different. but i would bet money they would support some kind of partnership agreement without the contentious word marriage attached,

in UK we have civil partnerships which were supported by all parties right and left and you know what, marriage hasn't been undermined and the world hasn't come to an end !!! :shock:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:34 am

tandfman wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.

They do't have to support it. They just have to let the states decide issues like that. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a federal issue.


I understand that i was still a little surprised that they wont come out and say the are for gay marriage. Politics.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:34 am

But do the civil partners have all of the legal rights that spouses have?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:39 am

tandfman wrote:But do the civil partners have all of the legal rights that spouses have?


Im not totally sure, i think they do and damn well should.

My point was i believe Obama and Biden are pro gay marriage but they wont say it for political reasons, im i wrong?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:40 am

tandfman wrote:But do the civil partners have all of the legal rights that spouses have?


As I understand it, the UK civil union is equivalent to a heterosexual registry office civil wedding in pretty much most respects. I can't think offhand of any area where it's not equal.

I've never understood the "homosexuals are responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family" shtick of the religious wingnuts. I think they've got a nerve blaming their adultery, divorces and crack-addicted kids on me!
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby racewalker » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:44 am

tandfman wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.

They do't have to support it. They just have to let the states decide issues like that. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a federal issue.


Ultimately, this WILL end up before the Supreme Court. There is no way it can't since the argument will be that if different states have different interpretations of civil union and/or marriage, it will, in effect favor one segment of society over another.

Gays should be allowed to marry - they are not a favored segment of society and should have to suffer like the rest of us.
racewalker
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:46 am

You say "most respects." Is anything left out? Inheritance rights? Rights to jointly own property? Insurance benefits (public or private)? Retirement benefits, etc.? The reason there has been such a strong push to legalize same sex marriages in the US is that registered civil unions confer some legal benefits, but usually leave the parties with fewer legal rights than they would have if they were married.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby kuha » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:01 am

This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:03 am

kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"


Abbssofreakinlutley
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:12 am

SQUACKEE wrote:My point was i believe Obama and Biden are pro gay marriage

No one is pro-gay marriage, just as no one is pro-abortion. For that matter no one should be pro-marriage either. With a 50% divorce rate, why should we be? On the other hand, I have nothing against marriage, gay or not. As for an abortion, I am certainly not for it, but I not willing to tell a woman who decides for herself that she wants one, she can't. That's not my business. It goes without saying that I don't believe that a a fetus (first trimester) is a person or I would agree that it is murder. For those who do believe it is murder, I would think you would also have to believe that bombing an abortion clinic is justifiable terrorism.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:17 am

Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:My point was i believe Obama and Biden are pro gay marriage

No one is pro-gay marriage, just as no one is pro-abortion. For that matter no one should be pro-marriage either. With a 50% divorce rate, why should we be? On the other hand, I have nothing against marriage, gay or not. As for an abortion, I am certainly not for it, but I not willing to tell a woman who decides for herself that she wants one, she can't. That's not my business. It goes without saying that I don't believe that a a fetus (first trimester) is a person or I would agree that it is murder. For those who do believe it is murder, I would think you would also have to believe that bombing an abortion clinic is justifiable terrorism.


I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages. :P
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:22 am

SQUACKEE wrote:I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages. :P

How do one know which is which? Some people divorce after 40 years. I'm only in Year #34 of mine, please clue me in, so I'll know if I need to dump the broad now! :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:32 am

Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages. :P

How do one know which is which? Some people divorce after 40 years. I'm only in Year #34 of mine, please clue me in, so I'll know if I need to dump the broad now! :twisted:


There will be dumping going on but it wont be by you my friend. Your 34 year old experiment could fizzle at any second! If she dumps you you could move in wih me. I have a hot tub and everything. 8-) :lol:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:38 am

SQUACKEE wrote:you you could move in wih me. I have a hot tub and everything. 8-) :lol:

Excuse me . . . I just threw up a little . . . in my mouth . . :o
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby kuha » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:40 am

Just don't foul the water in the hot-tub, please...
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:43 am

Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:I am pro Good Marriages and against Bad Marriages. :P

How do one know which is which? Some people divorce after 40 years. I'm only in Year #34 of mine, please clue me in, so I'll know if I need to dump the broad now! :twisted:


You honeymooner, you. 43 with my trophy wife.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby gm » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:44 am

It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks, no "rights", no nothing, for anyone.

Then again, those psycho, wackjob leftnuts wouldn't like that.
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:45 am

Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:you you could move in wih me. I have a hot tub and everything. 8-) :lol:

Excuse me . . . I just threw up a little . . . in my mouth . . :o



Ah ha! I baited you. You my friend have just exhibited homophobia on a thread about gay marriage, you should be ashamed of yourself! :P


Hey wait a minute Squack, maybe its you who Marlow finds disgusting, no ...thats impossible.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:50 am

gm wrote:It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks, no "rights", no nothing, for anyone.

Then again, those psycho, wackjob leftnuts wouldn't like that.


I thought the "family values" are at the heart of "those psycho, wackjob rightnuts".
But then again, what do I know? I am no more than a psycho, wackjob leftnut.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Helen S » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:16 pm

I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!
Helen S
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: in front of the computer

Postby imaginative » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:50 pm

Helen S wrote:I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!


I believe that the catholics once considered masturbation and coitus
interuptus evil, because it deprived a child of the chance of being
born. The concept would then not be entirely new. (Obviously,
extending it to each individual sperm/egg would be.)
imaginative
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:36 pm
Location: In an experiment to find out how the human mind works

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:17 pm

gm wrote:It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks,

Tax breaks? I believe until fairly recently there was actually a tax penalty for being married. Two people earning approximately the same amount of money paid significantly more in federal income taxes if they were married filing a joint return than they would have if they had been single filing separate returns.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:33 pm

tandfman wrote:
gm wrote:It would be fine with me if government entities withdrew all support for marriage/family issues, then people could do what they want. No more tax breaks,

Tax breaks? I believe until fairly recently there was actually a tax penalty for being married. Two people earning approximately the same amount of money paid significantly more in federal income taxes if they were married filing a joint return than they would have if they had been single filing separate returns.

Still do. It is why mrs. hammy and I, together for over 17 years, are still not married.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:36 pm

It's obvious that gm is NOT married. OR, he's so perpetually blissed out in matrimonial Nirvana that he pays no attention whatever to such grubby details of life as tax returns...
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby mump boy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:08 pm

tandfman wrote:But do the civil partners have all of the legal rights that spouses have?


it's my understanding that all the rights and responsibilities are the same but nobody wants to marry (sorry civily partner) me so i haven't put it to the test yet :cry
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:11 pm

I'm not sure what he would say about same-sex marriages, but a former boss of mine once advised me that "marriage is the smartest mistake you can ever make."
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:51 pm

mump boy wrote:it's my understanding that all the rights and responsibilities are the same but nobody wants to marry (sorry civily partner) me so i haven't put it to the test yet :cry


I'll do it mump boy, if we get to 40 and we're both still single! :lol: Then at least we've got a back up! ;) (I wonder how many people would freak out reading a gay marriage proposal on the internet? Disclaimer: I have never met mump boy or even had a conversation with him outside the confines of various message boards. Goodness only knows what we'd be letting ourselves in for).

"Will you civilly partner me?" just doesn't have the same touch of romance about it though. Do gays get down on one knee? Is it acceptable for a man to wear an engagement ring? On the other hand, if you've been disinherited by the in-laws for being gay then at least you won't have to spend Christmas with them. In separate rooms. :(
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Per Andersen » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:29 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:

My point was i believe Obama and Biden are pro gay marriage but they wont say it for political reasons, im i wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Obama is against gay marriage for religious reasons. Sometimes things are what they seem.

He is not particularly left leaning. You don't have to worry about him banning handguns or opposing the death penalty.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3737
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Flumpy » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:38 am

Per Andersen wrote:
He is not particularly left leaning. You don't have to worry about him banning handguns or opposing the death penalty.


Nobody's worrying about that, they're far more worried about the communist dictatorship that's about to be put in place!!! :shock:
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mump boy » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:57 am

Flumpy wrote:
Per Andersen wrote:
He is not particularly left leaning. You don't have to worry about him banning handguns or opposing the death penalty.


Nobody's worrying about that, they're far more worried about the communist dictatorship that's about to be put in place!!! :shock:


islamic, communist, dictatorship :x :x
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby mump boy » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:01 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
mump boy wrote:it's my understanding that all the rights and responsibilities are the same but nobody wants to marry (sorry civily partner) me so i haven't put it to the test yet :cry


I'll do it mump boy, if we get to 40 and we're both still single! :lol: Then at least we've got a back up! ;) (I wonder how many people would freak out reading a gay marriage proposal on the internet? Disclaimer: I have never met mump boy or even had a conversation with him outside the confines of various message boards. Goodness only knows what we'd be letting ourselves in for).

"Will you civilly partner me?" just doesn't have the same touch of romance about it though. Do gays get down on one knee? Is it acceptable for a man to wear an engagement ring? On the other hand, if you've been disinherited by the in-laws for being gay then at least you won't have to spend Christmas with them. In separate rooms. :(


hey don't laugh you may have a deal :wink:

T&FN first wedding you're all invited :D i want to hold it during a major champ and Merlene Ottey, Anna Quirot and Turinesh Dibaba as brides maids :P
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:15 am

imaginative wrote:
Helen S wrote:I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!


I believe that the catholics once considered masturbation and coitus
interuptus evil, because it deprived a child of the chance of being
born. The concept would then not be entirely new. (Obviously,
extending it to each individual sperm/egg would be.)

The Catholic church is still against birth control, but I don't know of any Catholics who have families the size of the families that Catholics from my grandparents' generation had. And the leaders of our faith are unequivocal in their opposition to the death penalty, but I know many Catholics who support it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests