In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet.
The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were."
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court's "threat to American democracy."
"The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he wrote. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."
The relevant cases were argued earlier this year. Attorney John Bursch, serving as Michigan's Special Assistant Attorney General, defended four states' bans on gay marriage before the Court, arguing that the case was not about how to define marriage, but rather about who gets to decide the question.
The case came before the Supreme Court after several lower courts overturned state bans on gay marriage. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of the state bans, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals writing a majority opinion in line with the rationale that the issue should be decided through the political process, not the courts.
Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.
Three years after President Barack Obama first voiced his support for gay couples' right to marry, his administration supported the same sex couples at the Supreme Court.
"Gay and lesbian people are equal," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at the oral arguments earlier this year. "It is simply untenable -- untenable -- to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.
The same-sex couples who challenged gay marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were just a few of the estimated 650,000 same-sex couples in the United States, 125,000 of whom are raising children.
The challenges included same-sex couples who wanted to marry, those who sought to have their lawful out-of-state marriage recognized, as well as those who wanted to amend a birth or death certificate with their marriage status.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Jim Obergefell who married his spouse John Arthur in 2013 months before Arthur died.
The couple, who lived in Ohio, had to travel to Maryland aboard a medical jet to get married when Arthur became gravely ill. And when Arthur died, Obergefell began to fight to be recognized as Arthur's spouse on his death certificate.
The plaintiffs from Michigan are April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two Detroit-area nurses who are also foster parents. They took to the courts after they took in four special-needs newborns who were either abandoned or surrendered at birth, but could not jointly adopt the children because Michigan's adoption code requires that couples be married to adopt.
Sgt. Ijpe Dekoe and Thomas Kostura became plaintiffs in the gay marriage case after they moved to Tennessee from New York.
The pair had married in New York in 2011, but Dekoe's position in the Army took the couple to Tennessee, which banned gay marriage and refused to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
The big legal hurdle has been crossed. It will take time for society as a whole to change, but now we are pointed in the right direction and moving there.
One physical step forward, with the dissenters still trying to hold us back. Hopefully they finally let go, but I fear the faux will be strong on this subject. Luckily, I've got popcorn ready.
I believe gays and lesbians have just as much right to be as miserable as straight people who are married.
Side note: When did the SCOTUS get to decide it was ok for homosexuals to perform religious ceremonies? You know, marriage having that whole religious overtone...hence the priest/pastor marrying you
Ghazkuul wrote: I believe gays and lesbians have just as much right to be as miserable as straight people who are married.
Side note: When did the SCOTUS get to decide it was ok for homosexuals to perform religious ceremonies? You know, marriage having that whole religious overtone...hence the priest/pastor marrying you
It's not a religious ceremony, it's a civil ceremony held at a court house by a judge
Good job supreme court, Still leading the way on all moral issues in the US, since the majority of their people still seem to fall short on morals.
the fact we need the supreme court to do what is morally right for america bothers me because most americans come down on the wrong side of moral issues. Where if america was more moral the court wouldn't be needed.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Saw this news on my FB feed. Obviously a step in the right direction, IMO.
Now... Drone strikes for everyone who refuses to comply!!!
Dont you know? Dinosaurs are better than drones. Tactical UtahRaptors for them.
And becasue they are also likely to be creationists tooooo, we got a double whammy
Ghazkuul wrote: I believe gays and lesbians have just as much right to be as miserable as straight people who are married.
Side note: When did the SCOTUS get to decide it was ok for homosexuals to perform religious ceremonies? You know, marriage having that whole religious overtone...hence the priest/pastor marrying you
There's never been a legal ban on gays performing religious ceremonies, and not all denominations of all religions ban gays from "wearing the cloth".
That said, as both a heterosexual and an ordained minister, I will gladly officiate the ceremony of any approved adults. Straight, gay, lesbian, queer, I don't care. Get your paperwork signed by the Court and I will do the honors.
Good job, SCOTUS. But, it is unfortunate that the decision was so closely and obviously split along liberal/conservative lines. If there had been just one more conservative in the Court...
1) Stay off twittah today... it's getting disgusting.
2) I'm reading CJ Robert's dissent:
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Where was this guy in the King vs. Burrell ruling? Jeeze.
The religious right really needs to drop this as a talking point...it's a hugely unpopular point of view for most of society...sort of the "gun control" or the right. Democrats were smart enough to (mostly) shut up about that. Hopefully the GOP can do the same.
I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
As far as the marriage thing, the term marriage is a religious one from way back when the different denominations of each religion have differed but they pretty much agree to call it marriage. Anyway it was about time to pass that ruling! I mean even Ireland beat us
Ghazkuul wrote: I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
As far as the marriage thing, the term marriage is a religious one from way back when the different denominations of each religion have differed but they pretty much agree to call it marriage. Anyway it was about time to pass that ruling! I mean even Ireland beat us
In terms of marriage being religious, you're wrong. I'm saying this before someone else starts an argument derailing the thread, but you can look through every similar thread we've had on this in the last year. Just drop it now, before it's too late.
Ghazkuul wrote: I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
As far as the marriage thing, the term marriage is a religious one from way back when the different denominations of each religion have differed but they pretty much agree to call it marriage. Anyway it was about time to pass that ruling! I mean even Ireland beat us
In terms of marriage being religious, you're wrong. I'm saying this before someone else starts an argument derailing the thread, but you can look through every similar thread we've had on this in the last year. Just drop it now, before it's too late.
Marriage was only codified by religious groups in the 1100's. And only because it was growing in usage The term marriage was only coined around 1200.
Same sex marriage was celebrated in ancient Asia, particularly China. There are Greek records of same sex marriage going back to 400BC or so.
Ghazkuul wrote: I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
As far as the marriage thing, the term marriage is a religious one from way back when the different denominations of each religion have differed but they pretty much agree to call it marriage. Anyway it was about time to pass that ruling! I mean even Ireland beat us
The current pope, from his words at least, is much more tolerant than previous ones. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
I think he could bring real change to the catholic church but would face strong resistance from more hard-line bishops which may prevent it.
Good luck to anybody that wants to go down that road - gay or straight.
I wouldn't marry again for a million pounds.
Sorry to be a misery guts, but whenever I hear the word marriage, I start looking for the exit.
First question I asked boots arriving to my battalion, "Are you married? are you planning on getting married" if they answered yes to either of those and were under age 25 i knew I was looking at a statistic and not a married Marine.
I wish you the best in your swinger life style now
Well, lets see if he follows through on that promise.
I would hope not. I dislike [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] that mouth off too much as much as the next guy but let's not start rooting for other people to die here.
Well, lets see if he follows through on that promise.
I think we should all e-mail/call/snail mail this guy a single phrase; "No Balls"
I don't want him to do it. Partly because I don't think he deserves to die just because he's an idiot and also because I think it would be a spit in the face of everyone who has given their lives in such a painful, horrible way in order to raise awareness of real persecution (i.e. Quang Duc in Vietnam).
Good luck to anybody that wants to go down that road - gay or straight.
I wouldn't marry again for a million pounds.
Sorry to be a misery guts, but whenever I hear the word marriage, I start looking for the exit.
First question I asked boots arriving to my battalion, "Are you married? are you planning on getting married" if they answered yes to either of those and were under age 25 i knew I was looking at a statistic and not a married Marine.
I wish you the best in your swinger life style now
No less than 5 of my friends from high school are married with kids.
Well, lets see if he follows through on that promise.
I would hope not. I dislike [CENSORED] that mouth off too much as much as the next guy but let's not start rooting for other people to die here.
Who said anything about dying? the man said he would light himself on fire, he didn't say he would burn himself to death, or did he? I didn't bother to read the article because....Balance.
Also, I love that "It is so ordered", does that happen in all Supreme Court rulings? Has kind of a "So let it be written. So let it be done" vibe from Pharaoh in the Moses stories from the Bible.
I made the mistake of heading out to the FoxNews site and maybe get a laugh out of all the comments to this story... worse decision I made since viewing 2G1C!
Well, lets see if he follows through on that promise.
I think we should all e-mail/call/snail mail this guy a single phrase; "No Balls"
I don't want him to do it. Partly because I don't think he deserves to die just because he's an idiot and also because I think it would be a spit in the face of everyone who has given their lives in such a painful, horrible way in order to raise awareness of real persecution (i.e. Quang Duc in Vietnam).
How does one not deserve to die?
If he doesn't want to live on this planet anymore because he truly believes in what he preaches then all power to him to do so and follow through.
In a few years when Gays start persecuting religious folks then they can look back on this. (if he follow suit)
False equivalency, since most of those things were decisions on a point of Constitutional law, which this is. Jim Crow laws *were* nullified by the CRA. That groups of people and organizations found other means to work around them (and never openly) is besides the point, for in every case where it was demonstrated that such laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment, they were overturned.
What this ruling has said is that it is against the Constitution of the United States to deny marriage rights to a couple based on sexual orientation. Full stop.
This basically kills any legal challenge to gay marriage in the courts, because there is no overriding of the Constitution. In order to reverse this decision, an actual amendment to the Constitution will need to be drafted and accepted.
Hehehe, just read through some of the current presidential candidates' responses to this. These two really stand out to me:
""The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that," Jindal said." --You know what, Bobby? The First Amendment would like to have a word with you regarding using religion to make law.
"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, "I agree with Justice - Chief Justice Roberts. As you know, that this is something that should be decided by the people and not by, I think he called them, five lawyers. I agree with that, I've said that before as to our Supreme Court. That this is something that shouldn't be decided by a group of lawyers, but should be decided by the people."" --Yes, because a much larger group of lawyers, doctors, etc. (i.e. Congress) will certainly do a good job of accomplishing what the people actually want. They've done such a good job of it so far, right?
Not to mention that I bet if there had been a referendum and gay marriage legalised by popular vote of the people, these politicians would have been running to the Supreme Court to try to get it nullified
I mean look at this:
The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls
Does he mean that the government shouldn't do what the majority of the populace wants? Pretty undemocratic, if you ask me
Ghazkuul wrote:I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
As far as the marriage thing, the term marriage is a religious one from way back when the different denominations of each religion have differed but they pretty much agree to call it marriage. Anyway it was about time to pass that ruling! I mean even Ireland beat us
To your first question: I think the pope has done everything but flat out say it, as another person said here, he's been much more "lenient" towards it than anyone prior to him. I also think that the Church knew what they were doing and getting into when they elected a Jesuit to the post.
As to your second point, as I already pointed out in this thread, it isn't.... but if you'd care for the history of the Church's relationship with marriage, by all means, look through the numerous threads that nearly approximate "marriage" on these boards, I know that I myself, and many others have given brief rundowns on how it came to be that the Fox News crowd have the belief they do today.
Well, lets see if he follows through on that promise.
Actually, Reading this, and scrolling through the thread, I had an idea that made me go back and quote this specifically.
I think it'd be absolutely awesome if this pastor got everything together. The stake, the wood, the gasoline/kerosene/lighter fluid, whatever together, all set up and ready. All he has to do is step onto the pyre and light the match and it's all done. Then.... Right as he's about to do it, he drops the match and says something to the effect of "God's love" and how he was so wrong, and really goes that extra mile to show how ridiculous some people have been in fighting this issue.
No less than 5 of my friends from high school are married with kids.
Military personnel are notorious for marrying the first stripper they meet out of boot camp for BAH, then leaving for a long deployment and coming back to a divorce.
Ghazkuul wrote: I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
No.
And it most likely will never happen within the Catholic Church, as Marriage is a sacrament with procreation as an express purpose.
Ghazkuul wrote: I honestly don't know because im one of the worst Catholics ever, but did the pope OK Gay marriage yet? The reason I ask is because of my earlier post.
No.
And it most likely will never happen within the Catholic Church, as Marriage is a sacrament with procreation as an express purpose.
This is one of those areas where I tend to think "Never say never.”
The Catholic Church tends to move very slowly, but it does have this instinct for survival.
I think that if we see two more popes as progressive as Francis, one of them will concoct some Theological Justification to forgive homosexuality, and even allow Atheists to receive communion (They already allow "Agnostics" - they have a definition of the TYPE of Agnostic you have to be).
The Catholic Church is about saving everyone... And their rules to that end have become more accepting of reality as time passes, even if it takes a while (only 500 years with Galileo, but they finally got around to it).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Piston Honda wrote: I would like to take a second and thank Ronald Reagan for this decision.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
I cannot exalt this post enough (I knew there was a reason I voted for Reagan).
cincydooley wrote: Or prostitution! I can't wait to see my FB feed full of porn.
I would fully endorse the decriminalization of prostitution, but only after a major effort to end human trafficking of women forced into it. If they do it willingly and of their own free will, I'd support it. But with human trafficking a real thing you can not be sure who's their willingly and who's forced.
It's similar, but there is an important difference, marriage already existed in those states, and gay people didn't have the law apply equally to them, if there is no concealed carry, prostitution, and legalized marriage, that argument fails. The law is being applied equally to all people. It's not like there is a select group of people who are allowed to smoke pot or something.
Edit: I could see polygamy though. I don't have any objections to that personally.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's similar, but there is an important difference, marriage already existed in those states, and gay people didn't have the law apply equally to them, if there is no concealed carry, prostitution, and legalized marriage, that argument fails. The law is being applied equally to all people. It's not like there is a select group of people who are allowed to smoke pot or something.
Edit: I could see polygamy though. I don't have any objections to that personally.
well as far as medical pot, meet this guy, one of 4 the US federal government gives joints to while saying states can't decriminalize medical use:
He's the guy who smokes in front of the white house.
If you think his dealer is thrilled to have a client who has smoked 10 to 12 joints a day for the past 28 years, you're wrong. Rosenfeld, who suffers from a rare form of bone cancer, isn't your typical weed smoker, and his dealer isn't your typical drug pusher. He gets his joints -- 300 at a time, one shipment every 25 days -- courtesy of the United States federal government.
Congratulations on the SCOTUS for making the only correct decision possible in this case. Now hopefully USCIS can start granting same sex couples the same immigration privileges as heterosexual couples.
Very proud of SCOTUS. Aside from the positively ludicrous claim of Scalia that this decision was an "... attack on democracy...", i thought ALL the opinions were at least well reasoned and written, and very happy that they ruled how they did. Ditto on the (latest!) ACA ruling as well. Been a good session for SCOTUS rulings so far overall.
I kind of wanna have a party now. But at the same time, I just am happy this thing is finally fething resolved now all we have to do is have society change with this court decision.
whembly wrote: There's calls right now to legalize polygamy.
Which should be done. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but the reasons for opposing it are just as terrible as the reasons for opposing gay marriage.
While Scalia basically had a tantrum at how 'hippies are promiscuous feths' and other utter insanity, Thomas writes that he doesnt' believe the government can take away or reduce a human being's dignity, even if Americans are put into internment camps. Nor that Slavery reduced the dignity of people kidnapped, brutalized and forced into labor.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It is going to be rather amusing watching republican presidential candidates tow the line. The scary thing here is that 4 judges voted against it.
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that things would have been a lot different if there had been one more conservative judge in the court instead. Which, ideally, shouldn't matter, as judges are supposed to be impartial and not beholden to liberal or conservative views (that's why I absolutely loath the idea of judges running for election as a member of any party).
At least two of the candidates have used the phrase "judicial tyranny" in their responses. One candidate has already promised to pack the court with conservatives if he gets elected. Only a few have been surprisingly rational in their responses, while most are basically being as inflammatory as they can. Political points to be scored with the party base, I guess. Too bad those same responses will be seen by the moderates they so desperately need to actually win in 2016. I foresee a lot of their comments from this week's rulings coming back to bite them in the ass come election time. It's like they have no sense of foresight, or they didn't learn from Romney's "47% mistake." Don't give the Ds easy ammunition to make you look like a hateful bigot.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It is going to be rather amusing watching republican presidential candidates tow the line. The scary thing here is that 4 judges voted against it.
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that things would have been a lot different if there had been one more conservative judge in the court instead. Which, ideally, shouldn't matter, as judges are supposed to be impartial and not beholden to liberal or conservative views (that's why I absolutely loath the idea of judges running for election as a member of any party).
At least two of the candidates have used the phrase "judicial tyranny" in their responses. One candidate has already promised to pack the court with conservatives if he gets elected. Only a few have been surprisingly rational in their responses, while most are basically being as inflammatory as they can. Political points to be scored with the party base, I guess. Too bad those same responses will be seen by the moderates they so desperately need to actually win in 2016. I foresee a lot of their comments from this week's rulings coming back to bite them in the ass come election time. It's like they have no sense of foresight, or they didn't learn from Romney's "47% mistake." Don't give the Ds easy ammunition to make you look like a hateful bigot.
Looks like Hilary has taken your advice to heart. She must chuckle when she sees what her opponents are saying about this. Easy points for Mrs Clinton.
It's almost as though the Republicans want her to win
I am very happy at this decision, and I sincerely, truly hope that the religious right will forever drop this issue. The mainstream of the religious right has actually come quite a long ways with race relations, and I'm guessing and hoping that their views on gay marriage will evolve in the same way as their views on interracial marriage have evolved.
Who knows, maybe even one day 20-25 years from now, a conservative Baptist pastor will actually want to officiate at a gay wedding, or conservative bakers may actually want to bake that gay wedding cake, the same way I assume most would be happy to help out with an interracial wedding today.
whembly wrote: There's calls right now to legalize polygamy.
Which should be done. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but the reasons for opposing it are just as terrible as the reasons for opposing gay marriage.
If they can figure out the logistics such as taxes and family insurance plans, go for it
On the issue of marriage between 2 people, I feel they made the morally correct decision. This isn't a theocracy, the bible should have zero say in our laws. People are entitled to their opinions, but conservatives who oppose equal rights really should rework their priorities list. Help the less fortunate, stop wearing polyester and eating shellfish, love thy neighbor, then if you have time afterwards tell gays to repent.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: If they can figure out the logistics such as taxes and family insurance plans, go for it
That's what lawyers are for. We can figure out the logistics of complicated business arrangements between lots of people, so a mere multi-person marriage shouldn't be too difficult.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the United States one step closer to the freedom-loving utopia envisioned by right-leaning philanthropy baron David Koch.
Koch, who has publicly supported gay marriage since before Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on the issue, signed on to a Supreme Court brief in March urging the court to overturn same-sex marriage bans. Clinton, meanwhile, did not believe in a Constitutional right to gay marriage until April 15, 2015.
The court’s ruling is just the latest example of how the Koch brothers will be remembered as tireless champions of freedom who have consistently been on the right side of history. David Koch has donated generously to the arts and is an outspoken enemy of cancer, which has riled his critics on the Let's not paint entire sides of the political spectrum with such an offensive, inaccurate brush, motyak. His recent donation to a New York City hospital, for example, inspired an angry protest from liberal groups. Koch-backed efforts to reform our broken immigration and criminal justice systems are currently under attack from Democratic operatives loyal to Hillary Clinton.
Fortunately for America, these attacks are almost certain to fail. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward Koch.
Dick Cheney was also an early backer of gay marriage.
A+ trolling by freebacon.
In future, when posting articles from biased sites, please check them for offensive declarations and the like, motyak
Funny how NONE of the Koch's chosen "Champions" support gay Marriage.
I would say that says VASTLY MORE than his own personal claims.
If I were to claim that I supported Free bacon for everyone.
But I then hired a group of people to run immediately to every supermarket and buy all of the bacon and then destroy it (or hoard it for only a few people).
Then I really could not claim to be a supporter of "Free bacon for everyone," could I?
Same thing with David Koch.
He claims a LOT of things, yet if you look at where his money goes, NONE of what he claims to support is true on that basis.
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of... family,"
So this is the ideals of family? Not judging on anyone on the basis of who they opt to feth but that's not the "ideal" that a lot of people share, for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations. While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.
stanman wrote: for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations.
1) Adoption.
2) Infertile couples (man + woman) are still allowed to get married, and nobody would question that their family is legitimate.
While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.
People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. The majority believe (correctly) that "family" is defined in a way that gay couples are included.
So this is the ideals of family? Not judging on anyone on the basis of who they opt to feth but that's not the "ideal" that a lot of people share, for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations. While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.
The Justice wasn't discussing what makes for an ideal family, nor should he have as that is a matter for the individual to decide, rather noting that family is an ideal which the union of marriage embodies.
stanman wrote: for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations.
1) Adoption.
2) Infertile couples (man + woman) are still allowed to get married, and nobody would question that their family is legitimate.
Adoption is a secondary option, I think that if you asked most couples about their ideal marriage/situation it would be having their own biological offspring whenever possible. Adoption is admirable and makes for a form of family but it's also not the same. I have several friends who were adopted at birth and while they love their adopted parents they still feel there's a difference in that family connection that sets them apart from non-adoptive family members. The older the kids are when they are adopted the larger that void seems to be. In an adoptive relationship you may raise the child and guide them with love but they still aren't your genetic child, in effect it's much like being a teacher or caretaker where you can have a huge positive impact on the child's life but no matter what efforts you undertake that child is never your actual offspring.
I don't think ability to have children should be a qualification to make marriage legit, but when you ask most people how they define an "ideal family" children are pretty much always at the top of that list as they view family to extend beyond themselves and in a perfect ideal scenario that means kids of their own blood.
While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.
People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. The majority believe (correctly) that "family" is defined in a way that gay couples are included.
Hard to say, a loud vocal minority contrasted with a silent majority can appear to have approval of the majority simply because the majority isn't being vocal about their beliefs. They may not openly protest against it but their silence shouldn't be assumed to be agreement.
stanman wrote: Adoption is a secondary option, I think that if you asked most couples about their ideal marriage/situation it would be having their own biological offspring whenever possible.
Sure, in some absolute perfect ideal world. But when someone talks about "embodying ideals" they don't necessarily mean absolute perfection. A gay couple that adopts children might only be 99.9999% of that perfect ideal, but complaining about that last 0.00001% is just nitpicking. It's like disputing a claim that a war hero "embodies the ideal of courage" by bring up the fact that once, when they were a kid, they ran away from a spider.
Hard to say, a loud vocal minority contrasted with a silent majority can appear to have approval of the majority simply because the majority isn't being vocal about their beliefs. They may not openly protest against it but their silence shouldn't be assumed to be agreement.
So when polls show that the majority (by a solid margin) supports gay marriage we're supposed to conclude that people are lying in their answers and the truth is that there's a silent majority that is opposed to it? Or are the polling companies just lying (putting their entire reputation and profitability at stake) about their data? Do you have any evidence for this belief that the polls are wrong, or does it just conveniently line up with your other beliefs?
The simple fact here is that the opposition to gay marriage is very quickly becoming an irrelevant minority, just like opposition to interracial marriage did. And I suspect that history will judge them just as poorly.
If there was no benefit under the law to being married, I think things would be a bit different. Just because people don't care who someone else chooses to feth (you know, because it's none of their business) doesn't mean that's going to change what a natural (see: biological) nuclear family is.
By careful scientific study of exactly what percentage of an average couple's happiness comes from having children with their own DNA.
If there was no benefit under the law to being married, I think things would be a bit different. Just because people don't care who someone else chooses to feth (you know, because it's none of their business) doesn't mean that's going to change what a natural (see: biological) nuclear family is.
Why does this concept of a "natural family" matter? We let infertile couples marry, we let couples that don't want to have children marry, we let couples with children from previous marriages marry, we let married couples permanently remove their ability to have children, etc. In fact, the only time anyone seems to care about the "natural family" is when they need an argument (other than blatant bigotry) to justify their opposition to gay marriage.
A thought just occurred to me after seeing some of the recent conservative responses to the ruling, especially given some of the choice words they used ("judicial tyranny" and so on). How do their words compare to, say, the responses to Brown vs. Board of Education? I did some quick Googling, but didn't find any "soundbites" to compare with.
I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should anything to do with marriage whatsoever.
You're the one that made a claim about "family". Not me.
Marriage has nothing to do with what a "natural" family unit is. At all.
So your just here to make waves. I seen other post from you, so I know you aren't so dumb as miss the point of his post or why he picked 99% out of the air.
So your just here to make waves. I seen other post from you, so I know you aren't so dumb as miss the point of his post or why he picked 99% out of the air.
Picking it out of thin air is precisely the problem. It's entirely disingenuous.
It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.
Sure, in some absolute perfect ideal world. But when someone talks about "embodying ideals" they don't necessarily mean absolute perfection.
Moreover, when I say "Marriage embodies the ideal of family." all I am saying is that "family" is an ideal and that marriage embodies it, I am not making a comment on what an ideal family is, that is an entirely separate matter.
It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.
What individual States pass as legislation has little to do with the majority opinion within the United States as a whole.
I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should anything to do with marriage whatsoever.
That doesn't make sense. Marriage is exactly the sort of thing that governments are supposed to be involved in. Legal rights, taxes, inheritance and many other things are all highly affected by your legal marriage status and are all systems managed by the government. That's why any religious person (or anyone at all for that matter) can "marry" you, but only someone authorised by the government can say you are married.
Now if we were talking about relationships, partners and such in non legally recognised domestic situations then I agree - it's absolutely no business of the government at all with regards to who is shagging whom. Get yourself "married" by a priest and don't fill out the legal documents and you can happily say you are married, but the government won't recognise it and you'll miss out on any of those benefits. Also settling disputes in non legally recognised marriages can be painfully difficult.
Hell, that's half the reason people were pushing for legally recognising marriage between gay couples. Inheritance was a pain in the arse. Even something as seemingly trivial as visitation rights at a hospital all depend on that government sanctioned bit of paper that says you're married.
For legally binding marriages the government must be involved.
cincydooley wrote: Picking it out of thin air is precisely the problem. It's entirely disingenuous.
Do you honestly not know what "99.999999%" means? If not, you must be the only person who thinks it means that's an actual statistic and not just a way of saying "overwhelming majority".
It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.
Polls disagree with you. And most of those laws were passed years ago, nationwide opinion has changed significantly since then. Now state-level opposition is limited to a few of the most conservative areas, and even then it's mostly politicians holding up a giant "I HATE THE SAME PEOPLE YOU HATE" sign to secure votes rather than a sincere belief that their opposition will actually do anything.
So your just here to make waves. I seen other post from you, so I know you aren't so dumb as miss the point of his post or why he picked 99% out of the air.
Picking it out of thin air is precisely the problem. It's entirely disingenuous.
It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.
I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should anything to do with marriage whatsoever.
That doesn't make sense. Marriage is exactly the sort of thing that governments are supposed to be involved in. Legal rights, taxes, inheritance and many other things are all highly affected by your legal marriage status and are all systems managed by the government. That's why any religious person (or anyone at all for that matter) can "marry" you, but only someone authorised by the government can say you are married.
Now if we were talking about relationships, partners and such in non legally recognised domestic situations then I agree - it's absolutely no business of the government at all with regards to who is shagging whom. Get yourself "married" by a priest and don't fill out the legal documents and you can happily say you are married, but the government won't recognise it and you'll miss out on any of those benefits. Also settling disputes in non legally recognised marriages can be painfully difficult.
Hell, that's half the reason people were pushing for legally recognising marriage between gay couples. Inheritance was a pain in the arse. Even be lisomething as seemingly trivial as visitation rights at a hospital all depend on that government sanctioned bit of paper that says you're married.
For legally binding marriages the government must be involved.
Exactly. If religion had anything to do with making a marriage legal whatsoever, civil unions would not be legitimate. The long history of religion in this world just has the majority brainwashed that religion should be lifted up above all else when the majority is concerned, when religion should only just a personal private thing that should govern the lives of only those to choose to give it that authority for their own peace of mind, and not give them any sort of power over anyone else.
Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.
Let me elaborate, since I am now getting reported for saying this
It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children. The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.
The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.
Actually, trying to spread a disgusting lie like "Gay men are ripping babies from their mothers" is pretty fething abhorrent.
Cue linking one or two stories where something on the surface bears a slight resemblance to what you claimed, and then pretending that represents the majority of gay men and isn't just a few outliers.
And particularly telling of most author's mindsets when gay women are not mentioned in most arguments against gay rights, only those "ookie, creepy gay dudes".
ConanMan wrote: Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.
Let me elaborate, since I am now getting reported for saying this
It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children. The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.
The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.
The ancient social contact to protect and nurture childern is cummunal tribe based, not 2 parent based. In fact we know in "ancient times" women unfit to rasie their childern had them removed form them. We also know homosexual was celebrated in "ancient time". What was your point again.
Love the of poor me tone of your post, says a lot about you.
ConanMan wrote: It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children.
So what? It's impossible for an infertile man and an infertile woman to have children, but we still call their union a "marriage". Also, ever hear of this wonderful new invention called "adoption"?
It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.
Again, adoption. A gay couple still uses all of the benefits designed to protect and nurture children even if those children do not share their parents' DNA. Or are you going to claim that adopted children don't deserve to be protected and nurtured?
The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.
This is just laughably wrong. Nobody is having their children "ripped off" against their will. Please don't confuse surrogate mothers, who are paid for their services and voluntarily agree in advance to give up the child, with this absurd straw man of gay men going around stealing babies from innocent victims.
Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.
Don't act like you're being persecuted here. Your freedom of speech has not been restricted, and a private forum choosing to enforce rules for discussion is is not in any way the same as making it illegal to object to a law. Nor is there even the slightest possible chance that speaking against gay marriage will be illegal in the US.
ConanMan wrote: Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.
This is where you are right. There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage.
Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.
Support the statistics you bring to the table or don't use them.
Pretty simple.
Marriage should be a legally binding contract between consenting adults (and multiple if they so choose). What marriage is and is not should not be the purview of the state.
ConanMan wrote: Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.
Let me elaborate, since I am now getting reported for saying this
It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children. The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.
The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.
Why would you be reported? The people here on Dakka have big people pants and can handle themselves pretty well.
I have to say this, though, I have a cousin who worked social services for 30 years and he saw plenty of straight couple who had no business having children due the the abuses they would put them through. On the other hand, some of the best parents he ever saw were gay couples.
Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.
.
Well, that's not true either, is it?
In a number of states cousins cannot marry. In a handful it's even criminalized.
cincydooley wrote: Support the statistics you bring to the table or don't use them.
Or understand the obvious difference between genuine statistics and an exaggerated way of saying "the vast majority". You seem to be the only person who thought that "99.999999%" was meant to be a real statistic. Now the only question is whether you are genuinely confused, or just nitpicking for the sake of having something to argue about.
Marriage should be a legally binding contract between consenting adults (and multiple if they so choose). What marriage is and is not should not be the purview of the state.
IOW, "the poor lawyers need more money, let's give it to them just so we can have our moral high ground about everything being 'private'".
Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.
.
Well, that's not true either, is it?
In a number of states cousins cannot marry. In a handful it's even criminalized.
And as your post implies there are states where cousins can legally marry, I'm sure in those states where it is criminalized if anyone really wanted to, they could challenge it in court and win the right to marry their cousin. It would still be just a marriage though and not some newly invented type of marriage.
cincydooley wrote: Was there an actual argument there? Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?
The compelling reason is this: if you privatize marriage people have to pay more money to lawyers to arrange their own contracts and do what they currently get with a single standardized contract, and the only benefit is that it follows "privatize everything" ideology and/or is a polite way of saying "I hate gay people, if they have to have marriage then nobody gets one". If you want to argue for changes to something then you need to provide some reasons why we should make those changes.
The compelling reason is this: if you privatize marriage people have to pay more money to lawyers to arrange their own contracts and do what they currently get with a single standardized contract, and the only benefit is that it follows "privatize everything" ideology and/or is a polite way of saying "I hate gay people, if they have to have marriage then nobody gets one". If you want to argue for changes to something then you need to provide some reasons why we should make those changes.
Oh that's right. I forgot in other privatized areas standard template contracts/documents don't exist. Someone should probably tell LegalZoom.
Regardless, since your default here is to claim any desire to privatize marriage is that one must be a bigot, I'm done with the conversation.
Truth be told, I shouldn't have ever started it because you always think you're right.
If you decide to say that gay people can get married then you are saying that marriage is now not a transgenerational contract for the betterment of children.
Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now? Has our society got it right? Relationship breakdown all time high. Courts over blown with cases, fathers not paying maintenance, children being more and more nutty, gangs, tonnes of single parents. That is todays society. No hiding it. So. Do you not think that since the 1950 us departing from litterally thousands of years of society structures (which are there for a reason, because kids take 20 years to grow up) like marriage, nuclear families, real notion of fatherhood. Do you not think it is patently obvious we are WORSE today for turning out back on that?
If you think we are at some sort of zenith of awesomsauce re: bringing up children I have news for you. Register to foster. They will batter your door down to take a kid. There are thousands of kids of crack addled inmates desperate to be fostered. They are there right now. They weren't there in such numbers even when abortion was illegal so where have they come from?
Loss of tradition
Inability to learn from history
So we abandon everything we know used to work so we can high five each other without a clue as to the fallout. And as to that guy who said " some hetrosexual parents are bad at it " since when did decending into bad cases ever become a basis for worsening of any law. It's woeful logic. I hope you know. Lawyers cry over it. Citing bad cases do not make good laws. Ever. Despite how politicians like to behave.
And to the guy saying that that woman smeared two gay men over the forced adoption there are at least 3 cases not one, and all of them had the woman in prison. The birth mother. The owner of the overy. No invitro fertilisation. Normal sex. But the mother had the baby forcibly removed her name taken off the birth certificate and the woman threatened with prision if she talked .. and three so far have.. and are behind bars.. the rest.. we can't know about
cincydooley wrote: Oh that's right. I forgot in other privatized areas standard template contracts/documents don't exist. Someone should probably tell LegalZoom.
Obviously standardized contracts exist and privatizing marriage wouldn't create an impossible obstacle to getting married, but you're ignoring the question of why should we use that approach. Even if it's possible to privatize marriage with a relatively small amount of inconvenience and extra legal expenses what exactly are we gaining? Is there any practical benefit to the average person, or is it just part of libertarian "privatize everything" ideology?
Regardless, since your default here is to claim any desire to privatize marriage is that one must be a bigot, I'm done with the conversation.
Sigh. So I guess you didn't bother to read what I actually said? There was a very clear "or" in that sentence, and the "privatize everything" group has nothing to do with bigotry. In fact the "privatize everything" bit was intended to be the main point, and I just added the "or bigots" because otherwise someone would inevitably point out that there are bigots in addition to the libertarians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: If you decide to say that gay people can get married then you are saying that marriage is now not a transgenerational contract for the betterment of children.
No, because, as I pointed out already, gay couples can adopt children and use all of the "for the children" aspects of marriage.
Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now? Has our society got it right? Relationship breakdown all time high. Courts over blown with cases farthers not paying maintenance, children being more and more nutty, tonnes of single parents. That is todays society. No hiding it. So. Do you not think that since the 1950 us departing from litterally thoudands of years of society structures (which are there for a reason, because kids take 20 years to grow up) like marriage, nuclear families, real notion of father hood. Do you not think it is patently obvious we are WORSE today for turning out back on that?
What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?
(PS: the answer is "absolutely nothing".)
They will batter your door down to take a kid.
No they won't. Please stop making these ridiculous straw man arguments.
So we abandon everything we knownused to work so we can high five each other without a clue as to the fallout.
What exactly is this supposed "fallout" of gay marriage, and what evidence do you have that your concerns are at all credible? So far all I've seen on the subject is a bunch of absurd slippery slope "arguments" and semi-coherent rants about the decline of modern society.
And as to that guy who said " some hetrosexual parents are bad at it " since when did decending into bad cases ever become a basis for wosrsening of any.law.
The point is that there is no worsening of the law. There are plenty of perfectly good gay couples doing a better job of raising children than those bad straight couples, so why shouldn't their marriage be legally recognized? This entire "argument" seems to be based on a bigoted assumption that gay parents are bad for children.
And to the guy saying that that woman smeared two gay men over the forced adoption there are at least 3 cases not one, and all of them had the woman in prison. The birth mother. The owner of the overy. No invitro fertilisation. Normal sex. But the mother had the baby forcibly removed her name taken off the birth cerificate and the woman thrwatened with prision if she talked .. and three so far have.. and are behind bars.. the rest.. we can't know about
{citation needed}
I suspect that if/when you provide a credible source for this story we'll see that it has nothing to do with "gay terrorists are going to steal your babies".
ConanMan wrote: If you decide to say that gay people can get married then you are saying that marriage is now not a transgenerational contract for the betterment of children.
Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now? Has our society got it right? Relationship breakdown all time high. Courts over blown with cases farthers not paying maintenance, children being more and more nutty, tonees of single parents. That is todays society. No hiding it. So. Do you not think that since the 1950 us departing from litterally thoudands of years of society structures (which are there for a reason, becaud kids take 20 to grow up) like marriage, nuclear families, real notion of father hood. Do you not think it is patently obvious we are WORSE today for turning out back on that?
Firstly, you're assuming that marriage has always been a "transgenerational contract for the betterment of the children" without providing anything to prove that to be the case. "Think of the children!!!11!" is a rather dishonest way of arguing a point.
Secondly, the fact that people are divorcing more might have to do with the fact that they simply weren't allowed to in the past. Forcing people to stay in a relationship that isn't working sounds like a great environment for kids to grow up in. Further, I'm pretty sure that being black, homo- or bisexual, or anything else that isn't the norm in society is infinitely more pleasant today than the 1950's. Your entire argument is essentially one big argumentum ad antiquitatem.
cincydooley wrote: Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?
How would you go about privatizing marriage? I mean, private entities can already pronounce marriage on a whim; the only question is government recognition.
MrDwhitey wrote: I thought pedantry was a way of life in the OT.
Was there an actual argument there? Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?
Because the government doesn't recognize private agreements. Which would make all the legal reasons for marring (custody, social security, ect.) moot. Your "privitzation" of marriage would remove all the reasons for gay people are fighting for marriage. They can already to private ceremonies to get "married", but that doesn't mean anything if they don't have a license from the government.
ConanMan wrote: It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.
That 'ancient legal and social contract' is nothing to do with protecting children. It's a legal binding of two (or more, in some cases) people into a single legally-recognised entity. A requirement for that union to product offspring has been present in that contract in some cultures, in some times, but is far from universal... and as others have pointed out, would not just disallow same-sex couples from marrying, but would also prevent infertile people, people past child-rearing age, or people with no interest in having children from marrying. We allow all of those... so why not allow same-sex couples to do the same?
The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.
That has nothing to do with same-sex marriage... it's just people being crap to each other. And that happens in 'traditional' family units as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: There are thousands of kids of crack addled inmates desperate to be fostered. They are there right now. They weren't there in such numbers even when abortion was illegal so where have they come from?
Well, no... Back when your awesome social construct for the betterment of children was in place, those children would have instead just been living on the streets. Or dead.
At the center of any marriage is two adults who love each other and who want to spend the rest of their lives together. What their sexual preferences are should not matter. Nor should their fertility.
If the partners decide to have more than two adults as partners then that should be a choice that they make together.
ConanMan wrote: It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.
Inheritance is the primary reason for marriage. The idea of marriage as the best way to raise children is a very, very modern thing, because thinking about anything in terms of how best to raise children is very modern.
The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.
It's generally considered good form to wait until after you've been nailed to the cross before declaring your martyrdom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now?
Let's look at some metrics, shall we?
Teen pregnacy;
Drug use;
Teen crime rate;
Relationship breakdown all time high.
That is factually incorrect.
Let's just put this simply - you have absolutely no factual basis for any of your beliefset. Your theory is devoid of connection with the real world.
Anyone who pre-emptively gets in a jab about people reporting his posts to gag him clearly has a victimhood complex they want affirmed. One man fighting the brave fight for the truth in the face of overwhelming liberalism, or somesuch, I'm not expecting a quality debate.
ConanMan wrote: It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.
Inheritance is the primary reason for marriage. The idea of marriage as the best way to raise children is a very, very modern thing, because thinking about anything in terms of how best to raise children is very modern.
The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.
It's generally considered good form to wait until after you've been nailed to the cross before declaring your martyrdom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now?
Let's look at some metrics, shall we?
Teen pregnacy;
Drug use;
Teen crime rate;
Relationship breakdown all time high.
That is factually incorrect.
Let's just put this simply - you have absolutely no factual basis for any of your beliefset. Your theory is devoid of connection with the real world.
Your graphs are pretty bad, one for interpreting correlation as casuality, and because they don't go enough back in time. I would also like to see their sources.
Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.
.
Well, that's not true either, is it?
In a number of states cousins cannot marry. In a handful it's even criminalized.
Frazzled wrote: So yea, the right to party is the next fundemantal right!
I hear that you have to fight for that one, though.
Thats what the universal CHL is for. Alternatively a brace of full auto wiener dogs insures that you are fully prepared to fight for the right to paaarty.
AegisGrimm wrote: Wrong in one important part. Modern marrige also protects the partner and lets them speak for the other legally when one of them is incapacitated.
That is the part most homosexual couples are demanding to be treated fairly about.
I always thought this was the worst argument. A Power of Attorney fixes it and is available to everyone, regardless of sexual preferences. The argument seems to imply homosexual partners were either unwilling or unable to get each other a POA (and get god wills/living wills put in place) to protect them and their loved ones. I just don't buy that. Wether you are for, against, or completely uncaring about it, the argument just doesn't hold up.
There is nothing magical about marriage in the argument that POAs and other documents can't fix.
Heck, I had to get a POA to put money into my wife's IRA from our joint account.
AegisGrimm wrote: Wrong in one important part. Modern marrige also protects the partner and lets them speak for the other legally when one of them is incapacitated.
That is the part most homosexual couples are demanding to be treated fairly about.
I always thought this was the worst argument. A Power of Attorney fixes it and is available to everyone, regardless of sexual preferences. The argument seems to imply homosexual partners were either unwilling or unable to get each other a POA (and get god wills/living wills put in place) to protect them and their loved ones. I just don't buy that. Wether you are for, against, or completely uncaring about it, the argument just doesn't hold up.
There is nothing magical about marriage in the argument that POAs and other documents can't fix.
Heck, I had to get a POA to put money into my wife's IRA from our joint account.
The difference here is that in many places, a "traditional" spouse has always had that power, without a POA at the hospital. They also have "visitation rights" at the hospital, as in, they are typically allowed to stay beyond visiting hours, when most other people are asked to leave.
I have heard stories, though not cared enough to investigate their veracity, that even with a POA, some homosexual families were denied the "rights" entailed in the POA.
Yes, PoAs are great, and they solve a lot of problems that many families face, but the fact still remains that for a long time, different places like hospitals denied things to one group, but not another.
I never said there was no difference, I said it was the worst argument I had seen to justify gay marriage as the reason was not existent if the couple got the proper legal documents to protect each other.
Had a state said "No, you can't be the executor of the living will because you are the same sex as your partner" then the issue would be valid.
I would bet in the majority of the horror story cases where the life partner was not allowed in to see their dying loved one there were no legal documents done up (or they were out of date) and/or some fether hospital admin person didn't know what they were doing and the problem was easily corrected when someone smart enough to recognize the documents came into the picture.
I'm sure there will be a handful of examples where good (correct) legal docs were presented and some refusal still occurred, (there always is an example. But I am willing to bet it was rare.
AegisGrimm wrote: Wrong in one important part. Modern marrige also protects the partner and lets them speak for the other legally when one of them is incapacitated.
That is the part most homosexual couples are demanding to be treated fairly about.
I always thought this was the worst argument. A Power of Attorney fixes it and is available to everyone, regardless of sexual preferences. The argument seems to imply homosexual partners were either unwilling or unable to get each other a POA (and get god wills/living wills put in place) to protect them and their loved ones. I just don't buy that. Wether you are for, against, or completely uncaring about it, the argument just doesn't hold up.
There is nothing magical about marriage in the argument that POAs and other documents can't fix.
Heck, I had to get a POA to put money into my wife's IRA from our joint account.
That is just 1 example of the 1,138 things married couples get automatically. So making anyone suffer through filling out 1,138 POA's is inhumane when there is one form that can be filled out that covers all of them.
Your definition of inhumane and mine are not closely related.
And I'm not seeing anything at your link that shows this as one of the 1,138 things. Your link doesn't address it at all. It isn't (as far as I know) a Federal issue where it would make that list.
Even with married couples, they go through the 'inhumane' process of wills/living wills and POAs if they want to make sure their bases are covered.
Look at the Schiavo case. Even 'traditional' marriage has not been a guarantee for these issues.
CptJake wrote: Your definition of inhumane and mine are not closely related.
And I'm not seeing anything at your link that shows this as one of the 1,138 things. Your link doesn't address it at all. It isn't (as far as I know) a Federal issue where it would make that list.
Even with married couples, they go through the 'inhumane' process of wills/living wills and POAs if they want to make sure their bases are covered.
Look at the Schiavo case. Even 'traditional' marriage has not been a guarantee for these issues.
The big ones usually comes down to the money, do you think the military would pay out survivor benefits to anyone not listed as a spouse just because you had a POA? or social security benefits?
How about immigration, where being married to an american leads to a different route for spouses to get citizenships, I'm sure Immigration would take a POA though.
Try getting someone added to your family insurance plan with a POA.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.
CptJake wrote: Your definition of inhumane and mine are not closely related.
And I'm not seeing anything at your link that shows this as one of the 1,138 things. Your link doesn't address it at all. It isn't (as far as I know) a Federal issue where it would make that list.
Even with married couples, they go through the 'inhumane' process of wills/living wills and POAs if they want to make sure their bases are covered.
Look at the Schiavo case. Even 'traditional' marriage has not been a guarantee for these issues.
The big ones usually comes down to the money, do you think the military would pay out survivor benefits to anyone not listed as a spouse just because you had a POA? or social security benefits?
How about immigration, where being married to an american leads to a different route for spouses to get citizenships, I'm sure Immigration would take a POA though.
Try getting someone added to your family insurance plan with a POA.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.
I responded to:
Modern marrige also protects the partner and lets them speak for the other legally when one of them is incapacitated.
And THAT is what I addressed. Add in any other things you want and then try to attribute my response as you desire. It won't matter because any additional issues you bring up were NOT what I was addressing.
A POA (or in some cases a will/living will) allows one partner to speak for the other legally when the one is incapacitated. It does. And that is ALL I addressed, and in fact why I addressed it. Because THAT ONE issue is, as I said, a bad reason to use when wanting to justify gay marriage. It isn't an issue if the couple worked out the documents they way they should have, knowing at the time that it would preempt issues if one of them were to be incapacitated.
CptJake wrote: Your definition of inhumane and mine are not closely related.
And I'm not seeing anything at your link that shows this as one of the 1,138 things. Your link doesn't address it at all. It isn't (as far as I know) a Federal issue where it would make that list.
Even with married couples, they go through the 'inhumane' process of wills/living wills and POAs if they want to make sure their bases are covered.
Look at the Schiavo case. Even 'traditional' marriage has not been a guarantee for these issues.
The big ones usually comes down to the money, do you think the military would pay out survivor benefits to anyone not listed as a spouse just because you had a POA? or social security benefits?
How about immigration, where being married to an american leads to a different route for spouses to get citizenships, I'm sure Immigration would take a POA though.
Try getting someone added to your family insurance plan with a POA.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.
I responded to:
Modern marrige also protects the partner and lets them speak for the other legally when one of them is incapacitated.
And THAT is what I addressed. Add in any other things you want and then try to attribute my response as you desire. It won't matter because any additional issues you bring up were NOT what I was addressing.
A POA (or in some cases a will/living will) allows one partner to speak for the other legally when the one is incapacitated. It does. And that is ALL I addressed, and in fact why I addressed it. Because THAT ONE issue is, as I said, a bad reason to use when wanting to justify gay marriage. It isn't an issue if the couple worked out the documents they way they should have, knowing at the time that it would preempt issues if one of them were to be incapacitated.
I got that, but it's a much larger issue than that ONE ISSUE. Which is why I pointed out there was 1138 things that you get from marriage. That might have been the biggest issue to AegisGrimm and why he lead with it. There is NO ONE issue to justify marriage equality, there are 1400+ issues to justify it. You might object to a few of them that could be handled with a POA, But only a handfull of them. Thankfully SCOTUS settled the matter and granted same sex couples access to all the protections & granted under the law.
Which, yet again, is why my point was simple: That one issue was/is in my opinion, a dumb one to bring up for justification. Period. Stop. End.
With a slew of other issues, some very damned good issue to be brought up, one that is/was frankly silly because it was so easily addressed within the existing system was a poor issue for justification of a major change.
So, if you want to bring up a slew of other issues, have at it. Just don't quote my post as a transition to your diatribe as if it related to what I posted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why it would not matter if that one point was the single area of discrimination. Why should gay people have to get a POA?
Because even married couples get (and in cases like the one I brought up) NEED POAs.
And more bluntly, within the system at the time if The Issue was inability to see your dying spouse, that Issue was simply addressed. To NOT have gotten POAs or wills/living wills knowing what the system was, you were either lazy, ignorant, selfish or didn't care enough about your spouse to protect each other. Because if you wanted to, the issue was easily addressed within the current system. To bet on an incapacitation happening and deliberately not getting the documents needed so that you could make political points would be disgusting behavior. I doubt it happened.
And, yet again, even 'traditional' marriages need POAs and other documents to ensure the correct actions are taken at the appropriate times. Again, I gave examples in my personal life of needing POAs. I gave an example where a husband still went through all kinds of legal problems in an attempt to take care of his incapacitated wife as he believed she would have wanted it. Marriage never was a Magic Wand that fixed this issue.
G couple wants to have a wedding at a specific church. One of the couple is a member.
Priest says has to be a members but that doesn't work. Church also has a day care welcome to all, and occasionally permits other small congregations to meet in the central meeting area downstairs. Priest says he won't do it, but they denote they can bring their own priest in. Can the G couple force the ceremony there if the head priest refuses to permit?
Frazzled wrote: Can the G couple force the ceremony there if the head priest refuses to permit?
IMO that depends entirely on the details of the church's wedding policy.
If it says "all members can use the church for a wedding" then they would have an obligation to allow it as long as one of the people is a member.
If it says "all members can use the church for a wedding, according to the stated rules of the religion (which only allow weddings between one man and one woman)" and there's no issue of making false or ambiguous promises about what services the church provides to recruit a potential new member then no, they wouldn't have an obligation to allow it.
If the church rents space as a general wedding service to anyone who wants to use it then they've crossed the line from being a private club into being a for-profit business and would have to obey any relevant anti-discrimination laws, including laws against anti-gay discrimination, and therefore may have an obligation to rent their space to the gay couple.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
Our catholic church had very detailed wedding policies. The couple had to meet with the priest at least twice. The priest would NOT perform outdoor ceremonies. And a bunch of other stuff. That was back in 1998 when I looked at it, so I don't know what all was in it.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
If they don't have a written policy then the court (if relevant) has to consider unwritten policies. Saying "I'll do this in exchange for that" is still an agreement that can be enforced in court, even without a written document. It just gets harder to prove the details of what was promised.
skyth wrote: The Shiavo case is an extreme anomoly. It became a polutical football.
Yeah, the courts, IRRC, sided with the husband on all, or nearly all occasions. It was the Florida Legislature that kept getting involved. It was a hot mess, but the husband did prevail in the end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: And more bluntly, within the system at the time if The Issue was inability to see your dying spouse, that Issue was simply addressed. To NOT have gotten POAs or wills/living wills knowing what the system was, you were either lazy, ignorant, selfish or didn't care enough about your spouse to protect each other. Because if you wanted to, the issue was easily addressed within the current system. To bet on an incapacitation happening and deliberately not getting the documents needed so that you could make political points would be disgusting behavior. I doubt it happened.
And, yet again, even 'traditional' marriages need POAs and other documents to ensure the correct actions are taken at the appropriate times. Again, I gave examples in my personal life of needing POAs. I gave an example where a husband still went through all kinds of legal problems in an attempt to take care of his incapacitated wife as he believed she would have wanted it. Marriage never was a Magic Wand that fixed this issue.
You don't know what nearly all people that study human behavior on a large scale know: by your standards, nearly everybody is "either lazy, ignorant, selfish or didn't care enough about your spouse to protect each other."
People make shockingly little effort to take care of important matters. My parents are college educated people that never saw a financial planner. My Uncle has substantial assests, no children, a wife that brought even greater assests into the marriage, and no will. Things happen, they happen quickly, and things we promised to do we never do.
You can get on a high horse judging people, or you can understand that there are huge benefits to being a legal spouse, that range from the relatively minor to the enormous. I had to move for work, literally six weeks after my wedding. My moving expenses increased to include her. Marriage ties everything together.
How about... being able to be married to the person you love? Not enough for some, I suppose?
that's part of it, but being married comes with tangible benefits as well.
Marriage, more than anything else from a legal standpoint, is the act of making two people related. My wife and I are legal relatives, we are family in the eyes of the law.
Love is great, but love don't pay the rent. Love doesn't get somebody health insurance, or the ability to sign documents, or any of the other day to day benefits of being married.
How about... being able to be married to the person you love? Not enough for some, I suppose?
that's part of it, but being married comes with tangible benefits as well.
Marriage, more than anything else from a legal standpoint, is the act of making two people related. My wife and I are legal relatives, we are family in the eyes of the law.
Love is great, but love don't pay the rent. Love doesn't get somebody health insurance, or the ability to sign documents, or any of the other day to day benefits of being married.
Sure, I get that - but I got the impression from reading some of the posts that there's a belief these benefits are the only motivation for extending marriage rights to more people.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
I meant fanatics who would try to force a ceremony at a church location they are not wanted.
LGBTQIPA+
UW-Superior>Gender Equity Resource Center>GLBT
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual/Polysexual, Asexual/Autoerotic/Ally Plus (+)
UW-Superior provides a safe and welcoming space for LGBTQ+ individuals in the Gender Equity Center. Student staff provide programs that educate campus and provide support to the LGBTQ+ community.
Definition of Terms:
LGBTQIPA: Acronym UW-Superior Gender Equity uses for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, Polysexual, Autoerotic, Asexual, and Ally.
Lesbian: A woman who has emotional, physical, spiritual, and sexual/erotic attraction to other women.
Gay: Usually, but not always, refers to homosexual men. Also used on occasion as an umbrella term for LGBQ.
Bisexual: A man or woman who has emotional, physical, spiritual, and sexual/erotic attraction to men and women.
Transgender: An umbrella term to describe gender identities that stray from fitting into the male-female binary of dominant culture. 'Trans' meaning across or beyond gender, there are literally thousands of ways to be considered trans*.
Queer: An umbrella term to cover all GBLTQIPA identities as well as the movement for equal rights and equitable protection under law regardless of sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender display, or gender identity. This term was formerly derogatory towards GBLTQIPA, it was reclaimed and is considered a positive word by some in the community, but not all.
Questioning: The process of exploring one's own sexual identity, including but not limited to examining upbringing, expectations from others (family, friends, church, etc.) and inner motivation.
Intersex: The biological sex of those whose biological sex is neither completely male or completely female according to medical standards (usually having to do with the size or presentation of genitalia). This classification of sex is based on chromosomes, hormones, or primary and secondary sex characteristics. There are many different ways to present as intersexed (e.g. hermaphrodite).
Pansexual/Omnisexual: Refers to the potential for sexual attraction, desire, romantic love, an/or emotional attraction towards persons of all gender identities and biological sexes. Not to be confused with polysexuality, it means all instead of many.
Polysexual: A man or woman who has emotional, physical, spiritual, and sexual/erotic attraction to multiple genders/gender identities and/or sexes. Not to be confused with polyamory or pansexuality.
Autoerotic: Someone who is sexually stimulated only through internal stimuli.
Asexual: A person who has no sexual desire.
Ally: Anyone, straight or not, who support LGBTQIPA by learning about their issues and perspectives, and committing ourselves to work against heterosexism and homophobia.
Plus (+): an umbrella term/symbol used in order to be all-inclusive of anyone who desires to identify with this community
Additional Definitions
Advocate: This person identifies their own personal biases, and the biases of others. This is someone who actively works to make an accepting, welcoming, accessible, and equitable world for all.
Binary: The idea that only two options exist, as in two genders, two sexes.
Closeted: A figure of speech for one who has not disclosed, or chooses to keep private their sexual orientation, gender identity, or aspects thereof, including sexual identity and sexual behavior.
Coming Out: A figure of speech for one who is open and does not conceal their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Cross-Dressing: A man who dresses in women's clothing, or a woman who dresses in men's clothing, not directly related to gender or sexuality in all cases.
Drag: Queen- a person who consciously performs femininity, sometimes in an exaggerated/theatrical manner, usually in a show or theatre setting. King- a person who consciously performs masculinity, sometimes in an exaggerated/theatrical manner, usually in a show or theatre setting.
Gender-queer/gender neutral/: Any person whose gender presentation is an intentional mixture of gender signifiers. This is sometimes a political identity in support of transgender persons, and against the binary gender system.
Gender status: The societal and cultural expectations of people based upon their biological sex.
Gender: A guise, a role, a social construction and performance through which we learn to associate certain characteristics with maleness or femaleness.
Gender Identity: Our innermost concept of self as male, female, or transgender.
Gender Reaffirmation Surgery: Originally known as sex change surgery, or sex reassignment surgery. This surgical construction/reconstruction of sex organs and primary/secondary sex characteristics is sometimes sought out by transgender or transsexual individuals. It also can be performed without consent on intersex children.
Heteronormativity: The belief that all people are heterosexual, the assumption and/or belief that heterosexual relationships and behavior are superior, the norm, correct, and the actions based on this assumption.
Heterosexual: A man whose sexual/erotic attraction, emotional attraction, and affection are directed toward women, or a woman whose sexual/erotic attraction, emotional attraction, and affection are directed toward men.
Homophobia: A fear, anger, discomfort, intolerance of, lack of acceptance of, and/or hatred of homosexuality, especially rooted in the heterosexism.
Oppression: The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. It can be defined in a social context as socially supported mistreatment and exploitation of a group or category of people by anyone.
Outing: To declare a person's identity publicly; people can out themselves, or someone can out them with or without their permission (though in most cases, permission is preferred).
Polyamory: The practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Not to be confused with polysexuality.
Pride: Not being ashamed of oneself and/or showing your pride to others by coming out, marching, attending events, etc. Being honest and comfortable with yourself.
Privilege: A set up unearned, sometimes unrealized entitlement or immunity that is granted either by birth or a conditional basis. Contrasted by a right, which is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or human beings from the moment of birth.
Sex: The common, but imperfect sorting of people into biological categories of male or female, usually based on anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitalia, and appearances.
Sexuality: A capacity for sexual feelings, a person's sexual orientation or preference for sexual activity.
Sexual identity: How a person identifies their own sexuality. This may or may not relate to their actual sexual orientation. (only 16% of women and 36% of men who reported some level of same-sex attraction had a homosexual or bisexual identity). More closely related to sexual behavior than sexual orientation in most cases.
Sexual orientation: Describes whether we are sexually, erotically, meaningfully, and emotionally attracted to certain genders/sexes.
Tolerance: The practice of permitting a thing of which one disapproves, such as social, ethnic, sexual, or religious practices.
Trans*: The shortened version of transgendered.
Transition: A term to describe the process of changing one's gender presentation to accord with one's internal sense of their gender. This process differs for all who go through it, and is not an event, but takes anywhere between several months to several years to complete. Some people spend their entire lives transitioning as they redefine and reinterpret their gender. This process may or may not involve hormones or gender reaffirmation surgery.
Transsexual: An individual's identification with a gender that is inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex (Their gender identity conflicts with their assigned sex).
FtM: Describes an individual who is female to male transitioning.
MtF: Describes an individual who is male to female transitioning.
Zhe/Hir: Gender neutral pronouns used to replace she/her, he/him, and create gender neutral language. (Example: "Zhe said hir name was Blake," instead of "He/she said his/her name was Blake."
I'm all for acceptance (again, I voted for this) but I am honestly sick of hearing about this. In particular, in my view the main interest the government should have in marriage is the benefit it brings to society. Some of the comments in this thread regarding having multiple partners would seem to go against that. I.e. that households, and particularly households with children, who have two consistent parents are much more conducive to a healthier / better behaved and educated society.
I understand that there is a strong issue of rights and discrimination connected to this issue as well, but I also think that the legalization (and normal anti-discrimination policies) is where this should end. People have absolutely every right to disagree with a lifestyle choice, and obviously with the freedom of religion allowed in most societies, the vast majority of religions view non-heterosexual behavior as inappropriate. People are also free to disagree with that, but protection of religious freedom is also a key tenet of modern society (i.e., you don't have to believe what the king does, or change your views on his whims).
So, I'm glad this passed, I voted for it years ago locally, and I am ready to move on in discussions with friends about perhaps why someone should or should not behave a certain way, rather than just, are they allowed to do it (since the answer is a resounding yes).
I would disagree that the vast majority of religions finds homosexual relations inappropriate. You just have the loudest bunch of fanatics against them.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
I meant fanatics who would try to force a ceremony at a church location they are not wanted.
So if county clerks actually listen to the AG in texas and refuse to issue marriage licenses still, what sort of penalties/repercussions would happen to them?
skyth wrote: I would disagree that the vast majority of religions finds homosexual relations inappropriate. You just have the loudest bunch of fanatics against them.
It is hard to separate religious attitudes from social attitudes towards sexuality in many cases.
RiTides wrote: I'm all for acceptance (again, I voted for this) but I am honestly sick of hearing about this.
It's nice to have the privilege of not caring much about these issues. Other people aren't that lucky.
Some of the comments in this thread regarding having multiple partners would seem to go against that. I.e. that households, and particularly households with children, who have two consistent parents are much more conducive to a healthier / better behaved and educated society.
What exactly is the problem with having 3+ parents? Is there a credible argument (supported with evidence) that isn't just the same old "that's how traditional marriage has always worked" nonsense that has been used to argue against gay parents? If anything I would expect it to be better for children, since there are more adults around and fewer problems with all of the parents being busy away from their kids. And since living expenses do not increase to match the number of people living in a house a group of 3+ parents would likely be able to provide a higher standard of living for their children.
I understand that there is a strong issue of rights and discrimination connected to this issue as well, but I also think that the legalization (and normal anti-discrimination policies) is where this should end. People have absolutely every right to disagree with a lifestyle choice, and obviously with the freedom of religion allowed in most societies, the vast majority of religions view non-heterosexual behavior as inappropriate. People are also free to disagree with that, but protection of religious freedom is also a key tenet of modern society (i.e., you don't have to believe what the king does, or change your views on his whims).
Fortunately there is no (credible) threat to religious freedom here. The people talking about how they're afraid of losing their religious freedom or the ability to disagree with behavior their religion doesn't approve of are tinfoil hatters on the same credibility level of the people screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So if county clerks actually listen to the AG in texas and refuse to issue marriage licenses still, what sort of penalties/repercussions would happen to them?
Well they could sued, and then would be forced to comply by the courts, but they might just loose their jobs in an effort by the county governments to not get sued.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So if county clerks actually listen to the AG in texas and refuse to issue marriage licenses still, what sort of penalties/repercussions would happen to them?
They will be sued. Courts were order them to perform their job function or they will face sanction from the court. RuPaul may have a reality show competition in their front yard.
I would expect no court official to comply with the AG's suggestion, not once they get some sort of real warning letter from counsel prior to suing the out of them.
The AG is grandstanding. The question I have is why we have a foreign devil elected as AG (he's from Virginia).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fortunately there is no (credible) threat to religious freedom here. The people talking about how they're afraid of losing their religious freedom or the ability to disagree with behavior their religion doesn't approve of are tinfoil hatters on the same credibility level of the people screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.
You say its tinfoil hat, but in the real world example given-two out of three scenarios given involved defending a major suit with a good chance of losing. I was actually expecting the answer to be none, so you surprised me. In general I agree, but again, its the flag waivers of all sides that make it difficult for the rest of us to just get along.
What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Frazzled wrote: What if they don't have a written wedding policy? (but have a wedding policy for members-aka members believe this)
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
This is the rub I see. it sounds stupid, but fanatics make things stupid.
I don't think it is fair and definitely not 100% correct to class churches as fanatics, but perhaps if they don't have a wedding policy they ought to get one written up now that gay marriage is real.
I meant fanatics who would try to force a ceremony at a church location they are not wanted.
I highly doubt it, so much so that I'd bet it would never happen. Think about it, 2 people are planning their big day. Are you really just going to pick a random church to try and force them to do anything? Do you really want to spend your happy day by talking to cops & lawyers and having your guests fill out witness reports? then at the end of the day still not be married? On your wedding day, did you ever think for a minute, now who's day can we mess with, and cause a legal battle with?
Odds are the 2 people in question might belong to a church that is already ok with the idea. What I suggest to everyone have a friend get ordained and marry you. It's a few bucks and a little bit of time online to get legally certified to perform marriages.
sure there could come 1 nut job who really wants to try and get the phelps to perform his marriage, But I highly doubt there would be anyone else trying it with any random church. It's their happy day, and who would want to use that day to pick a legal fight that could drag on for years trying to force someone to perform your ceremony?
But I bet any same sex ceremony would be filled with tasty treats.
A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
But I bet any same sex ceremony would be filled with tasty treats.
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.
And, you know, the bakery was found to be in the wrong.
It's not really being fanatical to call out discrimination based on your sexuality.
Peregrine - Note that I said "consistent parents" in the text you quoted. We could certainly have a discussion about why someone could benefit from having more than 2 parents, but it's undoubtedly the case that children benefit from having the same adults in their lives as they develop (we have several friends who are foster parents and it is very challenging for both parents and kids).
As for your other points - nowhere did I say I did not care about this issue, but you certainly beat that strawman to death! Rather, I said I'm sick of hearing about it, and by that I mean I'm hoping that this decision puts the "final nail in the coffin" of the current debate, and the discussion can move forward instead of spinning.
I think having a 9-letter acronym (for anything!) that even has to include a "+" is a little bit ridiculous, though . There's even IPA in the acronym, which I always thought was India Pale Ale
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
But I bet any same sex ceremony would be filled with tasty treats.
Cake baby. cake!
the forces of the free market work in mysterious ways. If there are laws against discrimination, don't break the law.
He wasn't planning a wedding, he was being a racist monster.
Why was the priest being called a liar? that could very well be something he brought upon himself, but again, no one was getting married.
Yes there are fanatics, but as far as the church is concerned, this is the person who is performing your marriage ceremony. It could be funny to try and force phelps into doing it, but then if you win, you get to live out your happily ever after knowing phelps was there for your happy day. In the video of your ceremony you could see the hatred in his eyes as he performs the ceremony.
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
I doubt many churches have written wedding policies (as, you know, its a church).
IMO, it depends greatly on the size of the church.
The church that I practically grew up in:
At least one person had to be a "member" of the church
Both parties had to undergo "counselling" type classes, I forget now if it was 6 weeks or 6 months, before a pastor of the church would do a ceremony.
If the church facility was used, A currently sitting, former, or "approved" pastor must be the officiant.
If the church facility was used, a "religious message" must be read (as in, if you got married at the church, there was a "sermon" about the sanctity of marriage... In all the weddings I saw there, that "sermon" was really a 2 minute spiel)
For my younger brother's funeral, we found out that the pastor we wanted to read a eulogy wasn't allowed to (he had burned some bridges in the past, yet he was still one of the most beloved people in the church as a whole), because my family got the use of the church facilities, basically for free, the one caveat is that the church "required" a sitting pastor to read a "salvation message" again... it was only like, 5-10 minutes long so that it didn't detract too greatly from the reason people were there.
All those things, because the church I grew up in was 3-6,000 people, were included in bylaws and other written standards that nearly all staff knew, if not by heart, then they knew exactly where to look.
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
And only because politics of the day demanded that the "official party line" is no polygamy. Brigham Young himself was a polygamist. Regardless, the people who practice it in the SW US call themselves LDS, and so we have no other real name for them.
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
That is correct, however there are heretic -- or traditional, depending on viewpoint -- LDS members who still cleave to the old ways and those are the ones about which I am talking.
Relapse wrote: Enris, you already proved in an earlier thread you don't know half of what you think you do about the LDS religion.
Tell me then, what is untrue about Brigham Young was a polygamist?
What is untrue about the politics involved in getting Utah, a predominately mormon state into the union... when we have written record that the US Congress expressly wrote to the members trying to create the state, that so long as they allowed, or practiced polygamy, they would remain a territory, and not become a state?
What is untrue about the Fundamentalist group calling themselves LDS?
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
Of course there are also examples of polyandrous marriages, however they are really rather rare.
But if 11 people want to shack up together there is nothing to stop them. They won't get the legal advantages/protections of marriage, but this is an issue that I suspect almost no-one cares about and that's all she wrote.
Just so we understand this, people are excommunicated from the LDS church if they practice polygamy.
That is correct, however there are heretic -- or traditional, depending on viewpoint -- LDS members who still cleave to the old ways and those are the ones about which I am talking.
Those are the reorganized LDS, or as they now call themselves, The Community of Christ.
Relapse wrote: Enris, you already proved in an earlier thread you don't know half of what you think you do about the LDS religion.
Tell me then, what is untrue about Brigham Young was a polygamist?
What is untrue about the politics involved in getting Utah, a predominately mormon state into the union... when we have written record that the US Congress expressly wrote to the members trying to create the state, that so long as they allowed, or practiced polygamy, they would remain a territory, and not become a state?
What is untrue about the Fundamentalist group calling themselves LDS?
As in the last thread we had this conversation you have a lot of half truths:
Kilkrazy wrote: What evidence there is of multiple marriages in the USA comes largely from hardcore Latter Day Saints families in which the relationship between husband and wives is very often rather abusive. This does not necessarily affect the children, but the wives also are worthy of consideration, of course.
I think for this kind of discussion we need to draw a clear line between conservative/extremist religious polygamy and secular polygamy/polyamory. There are plenty of good arguments against the former, there aren't any (as far as I've seen) against the latter.
RiTides wrote: Peregrine - Note that I said "consistent parents" in the text you quoted. We could certainly have a discussion about why someone could benefit from having more than 2 parents, but it's undoubtedly the case that children benefit from having the same adults in their lives as they develop (we have several friends who are foster parents and it is very challenging for both parents and kids).
You said "two consistent parents", not just "consistent parents", which is a pretty big difference. Are you now saying that having 3+ parents is ok, as long as there's a stable and consistent family for those children to grow up in?
(And for the record, I agree that having a stable family situation is good. This is one of the reasons why recognizing gay marriages and hopefully multi-person marriages is important, if there's formal recognition of a relationship it's more likely to last.)
As for your other points - nowhere did I say I did not care about this issue, but you certainly beat that strawman to death! Rather, I said I'm sick of hearing about it, and by that I mean I'm hoping that this decision puts the "final nail in the coffin" of the current debate, and the discussion can move forward instead of spinning.
Ok, correction acknowledged. Your original statement sounded like you were saying something like "we gave you gay marriage, just shut up and stop making demands already". But I guess that's clearly not the case.
Frazzled wrote: You say its tinfoil hat, but in the real world example given-two out of three scenarios given involved defending a major suit with a good chance of losing. I was actually expecting the answer to be none, so you surprised me. In general I agree, but again, its the flag waivers of all sides that make it difficult for the rest of us to just get along.
The "tinfoil hatters" I was referring to there are the ones who are claiming that legalizing gay marriage is the first step towards throwing all Christians in jail and/or reeducation camps, which is obviously paranoid insanity.
And in your example it's more of a matter of contract law than beliefs. I think the clearly has a right to conduct weddings according to their own beliefs (and if they don't, the law should be changed), including limiting those weddings to couples that their religion approves of. The issue is whether or not they've made that policy clear to new members, or if they've promised potential new members "you can have your wedding here" without saying "unless you're gay" until that member has contributed money/become part of the community/etc. There's only a problem if they've decided not to honor their promises just because they don't feel like it.
I think for this kind of discussion we need to draw a clear line between conservative/extremist religious polygamy and secular polygamy/polyamory. There are plenty of good arguments against the former, there aren't any (as far as I've seen) against the latter.
I agree with you on the former. For the latter, and I've personally used the arguments many times in these forums: the legal issues of property dispersal in the event of a divorce.... Yes, it's an issue that can be fixed, the question then remains (in my mind) how much money will it cost us to sit down and hash out those issues (by us, I of course mean trained lawyers, who I would hope be the ones writing the change to legislation), how much time are we talking in that "fix", and of all that money spent "solving" the problems of a messy "poly-[xxxx]" divorce, how much could be spent fixing infrastructure on local, state and federal systems? How much could be spent on schools? Basically, how much could be "better" spent elsewhere?
Also, how would such a law determine a "chain" of marriages? Ie, we have person A, B, C, D, E,
A is currently married to B, but "when" polygamy/polyamory is legalized, wants to marry C and D. Now, D, is already married to E.
Now, in this "situation" let's just suppose for a moment that A and B are in agreement on marrying C and D, but D doesn't want to divorce E, and doesn't want to enter into any kind of relationship, peripheral or not with C.
You said "two consistent parents", not just "consistent parents", which is a pretty big difference. Are you now saying that having 3+ parents is ok, as long as there's a stable and consistent family for those children to grow up in?
(And for the record, I agree that having a stable family situation is good. This is one of the reasons why recognizing gay marriages and hopefully multi-person marriages is important, if there's formal recognition of a relationship it's more likely to last.)
IMO, just about any multi-parent household, provided that it is a stable one, is infinitely better than a single-parent household. The vast majority of statistics that I've personally seen reported show that kids in single-parent situations tend to generally do worse in just about every imaginable way (from grades, to legal issues, etc)
I don't know. But I can't imagine that, as a percentage of total federal spending, it's a very large number. Much greater amounts of money are spent rather frivolously without any hesitation already, so what's a little more marginally-relevant debt?
Also, how would such a law determine a "chain" of marriages? Ie, we have person A, B, C, D, E,
A is currently married to B, but "when" polygamy/polyamory is legalized, wants to marry C and D. Now, D, is already married to E.
Now, in this "situation" let's just suppose for a moment that A and B are in agreement on marrying C and D, but D doesn't want to divorce E, and doesn't want to enter into any kind of relationship, peripheral or not with C.
That's very easy to deal with. You just require that all marriage contracts, regardless of how many people are involved or how they are structured, be signed by all of the people involved. And if any of them are already married then those existing marriages must be dissolved and replaced by the new one. In your example the marriage would not be possible because D would not sign the contract.
IMO, just about any multi-parent household, provided that it is a stable one, is infinitely better than a single-parent household. The vast majority of statistics that I've personally seen reported show that kids in single-parent situations tend to generally do worse in just about every imaginable way (from grades, to legal issues, etc)
That's a interesting opinion, totally devoid of facts. So I'll just leave this here:
sociologists found family structure hardly matters.
Education: Family structure had no impact. Children were just as likely to graduate from college and university, regardless of family type.
Occupation: Kids who grew up with a stable single mom went on to better jobs than those who grew up in stable, two-parent families.
Income: There was no difference based on the type of family the child grew up in.
Peregrine wrote: You said "two consistent parents", not just "consistent parents", which is a pretty big difference. Are you now saying that having 3+ parents is ok, as long as there's a stable and consistent family for those children to grow up in?
(And for the record, I agree that having a stable family situation is good. This is one of the reasons why recognizing gay marriages and hopefully multi-person marriages is important, if there's formal recognition of a relationship it's more likely to last.)
As others pointed out, I said two as opposed to one or (as some were implying) rotating partners. As you apparently agree with, having stable parents does wonders for kids. I really have no opinion one more than two... I haven't seen it in practice and it's kind of an oddball case. Single parents really struggle, kids without stable parents really struggle, and that's what I was referring to.
Why the hell are people who are anti-gay marriage speaking of homosexuals like they are monsters lying in wait to either steal or subvert children?
A gay couple are not bogeymen (or women), they are goddamn people who are consenting adults that love each other and should be treated fairly like all others.
If two gay people love each other for years and years, and finally can get married and legally protect each other from a big, bad mean world, I hope some of those old crones and wretches out there can someday find that kind of love.
And that was just the first page of a google search.
Now, if you'll note in that first link, they do state that the crime rates have improved since the early 90s, but those improvements come at nearly the same time as many other factors began kicking in, such as changes in the way law enforcement conducts their business, etc.
Sienisoturi wrote: Your graphs are pretty bad, one for interpreting correlation as casuality, and because they don't go enough back in time. I would also like to see their sources.
Your response is woeful, because I stated no causative mechanism at all. I merely responded to factual statement, that things are worse now, with some facts that establish that claim was bs. As such, the claim made by the other poster, that things were so much worse now because of a decline in morals, becomes entirely wrong. Whatever has caused the improvement doesn't matter, his narrative falls apart when evidence is provided that things aren't actually getting worse.
And the sources can be traced from the url code. Learn to internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I always thought this was the worst argument. A Power of Attorney fixes it and is available to everyone, regardless of sexual preferences. The argument seems to imply homosexual partners were either unwilling or unable to get each other a POA (and get god wills/living wills put in place) to protect them and their loved ones. I just don't buy that. Wether you are for, against, or completely uncaring about it, the argument just doesn't hold up.
There is nothing magical about marriage in the argument that POAs and other documents can't fix.
Sure, it can be fixed by organising another legal document. The reality is, though, that most people don't go about organising a lot of legal documents just in case something goes wrong. It's pretty rare, for instance, for people to have a will until they have kids. And that's really the issue - for straight marriages this is handled by having POA assumed by the spouse by default, because the alternative is unworkable and unrealistic given how most people go about their lives.
I do agree, though, that in the list of reasons for gay marriage it's a pretty weak one.
G couple wants to have a wedding at a specific church. One of the couple is a member.
Priest says has to be a members but that doesn't work. Church also has a day care welcome to all, and occasionally permits other small congregations to meet in the central meeting area downstairs.
Priest says he won't do it, but they denote they can bring their own priest in.
Can the G couple force the ceremony there if the head priest refuses to permit?
I have no idea about the legal argument, but from a personal POV... for feth's sake why do people feel the need to sue over this stuff? If a church doesn't want to marry you, what is the mindset behind making the church do it through the law? Just move on, there's churches out there that will do the job without being forced.
And for what it's worth, my wife and I got knocked back from two churches. One because she hadn't attended that church in years, and one because I wasn't Catholic*. We never even thought of challenging them..
*Though apparently that might have been a miscommunication - they might have been looking for confirmation that we would raise our kids Catholic... it all got very confused.
sebster wrote: If a church doesn't want to marry you, what is the mindset behind making the church do it through the law?
In the case of that example it's someone who is already a member of that church. If you've been putting money in the collection plate every week, volunteered your time, etc, while the church has said "you can have your weddings here" then you might want the church to honor that promise even if it takes legal action to do it. The hypothetical example isn't the (IMO much less understandable) case of a couple picking a random anti-gay church and demanding its services.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Interesting article for Canada, but here's an article that Corroborates, at least partially what I was saying:
Interesting pieces, but you'll note the studies there, like most studies on the issue, don't control for family income. Studies that have controlled for that find that single parent status is actually not much of a predictor of delinquency in children. The far stronger predictor is household income - so a middle class single parent household is about the same likelihood of having a delinquent child as a middle class two parent household. And a poor family is much more likely to have a delinquent child, whether there's one parent or two.
Most of the correlation between single households and delinquent children is explained by the fact that poor households are so much more likely to be single parent households.
This is why the prediction that more single parents households would drive up the number of delinquent children never happened. Because they weren't looking at the real underlying cause, household wealth.
And it's why, ultimately, people who claim to be for family values but fight social benefits for poor families are just completely and utterly wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: In the case of that example it's someone who is already a member of that church. If you've been putting money in the collection plate every week, volunteered your time, etc, while the church has said "you can have your weddings here" then you might want the church to honor that promise even if it takes legal action to do it. The hypothetical example isn't the (IMO much less understandable) case of a couple picking a random anti-gay church and demanding its services.
I get why someone might be pissed, and I'd likely sympathise with them in most cases. But between the choice of just accepting it and getting married somewhere else (and likely leaving that church), and taking that church to court just seems kind of obvious to me.
It's like when some kid is sad because he wasn't invited to a birthday. It was rude to exclude him, but the answer isn't for his mum to ring up and make the other mother invite that kid. You can't make people include you, basically.
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.
Frazzled wrote: A bakery was ruined because they didn't want to bake a cake. Another fanatic went into a church and killed 9 people because they had more melanin in their skin and teeth in their mouth than he did. 6 people stood up in a Joel Osteen church service and disrupted it, because he wasn't being conservative enough.
You can't tell me fanatics are not out there on all sides.
I'm fairly certain that shooting people is a tad more extreme than wanting someone to bake you a cake.
And, you know, the bakery was found to be in the wrong.
It's not really being fanatical to call out discrimination based on your sexuality.
Why were they in the wrong? Why destroy an entire business that was literally minding its own business?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: Why the hell are people who are anti-gay marriage speaking of homosexuals like they are monsters lying in wait to either steal or subvert children?
A gay couple are not bogeymen (or women), they are goddamn people who are consenting adults that love each other and should be treated fairly like all others.
If two gay people love each other for years and years, and finally can get married and legally protect each other from a big, bad mean world, I hope some of those old crones and wretches out there can someday find that kind of love.
Sienisoturi wrote: Your graphs are pretty bad, one for interpreting correlation as casuality, and because they don't go enough back in time. I would also like to see their sources.
Your response is woeful, because I stated no causative mechanism at all. I merely responded to factual statement, that things are worse now, with some facts that establish that claim was bs. As such, the claim made by the other poster, that things were so much worse now because of a decline in morals, becomes entirely wrong. Whatever has caused the improvement doesn't matter, his narrative falls apart when evidence is provided that things aren't actually getting worse.
You implied the casuation quite heavily though, or are you admitting that modern family model might be inferior to the old one, as the things might be better overall due to technology, which could have compensated for the worse family model. I do not know what you were arguing before, but from a quick look it appears that you were arguing simply about is the modern family model better or worse, and not about are things overall better or worse. Might be a misunderstanding though from you or me.
And the sources can be traced from the url code. Learn to internet.
sebster wrote: If a church doesn't want to marry you, what is the mindset behind making the church do it through the law?
In the case of that example it's someone who is already a member of that church. If you've been putting money in the collection plate every week, volunteered your time, etc, while the church has said "you can have your weddings here" then you might want the church to honor that promise even if it takes legal action to do it. The hypothetical example isn't the (IMO much less understandable) case of a couple picking a random anti-gay church and demanding its services.
If churches begin to be sued to force gay marriages, then that right there would prove many opponents correct in their stated fears. That being said, I don't see that happening in the context of forcing a religion to turn over their buildings for such activities. If a person is a member of a religion whose doctrine prohibits gay marriage, it doesn't matter how much of what they donate' they can 't force the church 's hand.
I don't know of any case of a church saying someone can have a gay wedding and then all off sudden saying no because someone is gay.
Frazzled wrote: Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.
Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.
In which case the backlash will be horrific.
I suspect any 'radical agitators' attempting a stunt like this will want the backlash. The backlash will prove the haters are out there and justify further stunts.
It's like when some kid is sad because he wasn't invited to a birthday. It was rude to exclude him, but the answer isn't for his mum to ring up and make the other mother invite that kid. You can't make people include you, basically.
While I agree with you in full, that's sadly not how it seems to work anymore in the United States.
FWIW, Catholic Churches in Cincinnati are incredibly strict about their wedding policies. Most of them have, at minimum, a 6 month "member of the parish" requirement, in addition to the requirements of pre-Cana, multiple meetings with the priest, etc.
Frazzled wrote: Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.
Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.
In which case the backlash will be horrific.
Here's some of the issues:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?
Note #2 and #3 have already occurred in several instances, so this is not a slippery slope argument.
Interesting pieces, but you'll note the studies there, like most studies on the issue, don't control for family income. Studies that have controlled for that find that single parent status is actually not much of a predictor of delinquency in children. The far stronger predictor is household income - so a middle class single parent household is about the same likelihood of having a delinquent child as a middle class two parent household. And a poor family is much more likely to have a delinquent child, whether there's one parent or two.
Most of the correlation between single households and delinquent children is explained by the fact that poor households are so much more likely to be single parent households.
This is why the prediction that more single parents households would drive up the number of delinquent children never happened. Because they weren't looking at the real underlying cause, household wealth.
And it's why, ultimately, people who claim to be for family values but fight social benefits for poor families are just completely and utterly wrong.
According to this, which I know is Slate, and not really a "peer reviewed, industry standard" academic publication, income levels actually do not matter much at all in regards to the odds of children of single-parent households becoming a part of "the system"
However, I do agree with you that economic "freedom" and income are probably the biggest factor in nearly any crime statistics, and not just whether we're looking at where a criminal "comes from"
Frazzled wrote: Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.
Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.
In which case the backlash will be horrific.
Here's some of the issues:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?
Note #2 and #3 have already occurred in several instances, so this is not a slippery slope argument.
I've always felt that if churches want to involve themselves in politics, then they need to pay the price of admission. Otherwise, politicians will still continue to seek endorsements from prominent church leaders, because many people will vote for who their church leader tells them to vote for.
Frazzled wrote: Depends on what the courts do. Do I believe this is an issue for normal people of all sexual persuasions? Heck no.
Do I believe radical agitators will try it? You betcha.
In which case the backlash will be horrific.
Here's some of the issues:
*Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?
Note #2 and #3 have already occurred in several instances, so this is not a slippery slope argument.
#1 - yes, religious schools should provide the same housing to all married couples.
#2 - Churches shouldn't have tax exempt status to begin with. Churches are businesses, sometimes they run charity programs. They should create separate non-profits to deal with taxes for their charity programs, but treat the profitable part of their business as a taxable business like any other.
#3 - Adoption services available to the public should be available to all qualified members of the public, not just a special subset, which would be discriminatory.
This thread is literally riddled with inconsistencies, lies and just down right mis-information:
So:
Lets get going.
The number of single parent households is steadily climbing NOT dropping. God only knows where you dragged up your graphs, because they aren't measuring the right thing that's for sure
Second: Divorce "rates" dropping - you cannot look at the RATE - this is a misnomer because divorce incidence is dropping only because marriage incidence is dropping , if you look at the number of nuclear families (two parents living with their own children no step children or re-marriage) what is know as "serial monogamous relationship" you can see that nuclear families are n utter disarray - I know of schools where only two children in the entire school have got the same mum and dad and all 4 live together. ONE in the whole school.
What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?
(PS: the answer is "absolutely nothing".)
Not at all, there is no indication that further undermining the socio-relational contract of marriage (it is already butchered beyond belief) would have any positive effect on any of this and every reason to expect it would further dis-enfranchise the average member of the population to give even less credence to valuing traditional values. (traditions that WORK and are USEFUL).
I am sick to the back teeth of people wading into a debate they simply have no part in how many people on this post are even married? How many have done youth work? How many work with at risk young people?
The last part:
No-one here can actually agree what marriage actually is, none of you (all your definitions are as varied as they are based on garbage, sorry to be blunt)
So let me tell you:
MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.
In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
Flat out calling other users liars multiple times in a post is most definitely pushing Rule 1, if not breaking it. This is a warning for the thread as a whole. Don't. Go with something more polite, as per the requirements of the rule.
"I believe your graph was inaccurate, my data shows X Y Z [insert graph/link]"
"I think your definition is missing several key points, and adding in others that are unnecessary, like X Y Z"
But most certainly not
"You're liars who are wrong and are liars and [definition with more accusations of lying]"
Clear guys? This thread is going to go the way of the dodo eventually, but if we all behave and stick to the rules then it'll do that because conversation petered out naturally, rather than because it became such a mess it needed to be taken out back and shot. Thanks
No-one here can actually agree what marriage actually is, none of you (all your definitions are as varied as they are based on garbage, sorry to be blunt)
So let me tell you:
MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.
In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
My reading comprehension is a bit off. Are you saying marriage relies on a child being born (or maybe adopted)? And only parents can be correctly called 'married'? Childless couples even if they were married in a church and/or got the JOP to do a marriage license and ceremony are not actually married?
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, the bakery could have just baked the cake.
To be fair, the couple could have just found a bakery that wanted to take their money.....
indeed.
Obviously they of course were forced to go and do that since the first bakery refused to bake a cake for them.
That case, and the similar florist case, actually are closer calls than you might think.
There is ancient common law that "common carriers" must accept all who come by. Public transit, shipping, taverns, inns, that sort of thing have to be open to all, as they are necessary for travel.
Under most civil rights laws, that's been expanded to so call "public accomodations," which include nearly all businesses that are non-selective. So department stores, malls, restaurants, etc.
However, the laws have always allowed professionals to be selective on what clients they take, meaning a anti-pornography lawyer cannot be compelled to take on a client charged with obscenity.
Is baking a custom cake a public accomodation? I read the Oregon ruling on the florist, and I found their arguments somewhat unpersuasive.
TL;DR: I feel there is a difference between a business saying "we don't serve that kind of customer" and a contractor saying "we don't take those kinds of jobs."
There's also a nasty First Amendment compelled speech issue in here somewhere.
No-one here can actually agree what marriage actually is, none of you (all your definitions are as varied as they are based on garbage, sorry to be blunt)
So let me tell you:
MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.
In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
My reading comprehension is a bit off. Are you saying marriage relies on a child being born (or maybe adopted)? And only parents can be correctly called 'married'? Childless couples even if they were married in a church and/or got the JOP to do a marriage license and ceremony are not actually married?
i was going to ask the very same.
is this written in statute anywhere in the UK? Please cite such a reference if you have it please.
What happens if two people never marry, but have a child toegther. Who, together have rich fullfilling lives? is that....bad?
What about step parents?
edit: irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am sick to the back teeth of people wading into a debate they simply have no part in how many people on this post are even married? How many have done youth work? How many work with at risk young people?
Frazzled wrote: Why were they in the wrong? Why destroy an entire business that was literally minding its own business?
They were in the wrong because the law says "you can't do this". And the reason to destroy their business is, again, that they were breaking the law.
Frazzled wrote: *Should religious schools be forced to open married housing to same sex marrieds?
I'm not sure. The bigger question, IMO, is why the school is hiring a gay employee when their beliefs clearly don't approve of being gay. But if they're going to hire that person there's a decent argument that they should receive the same benefits as any other employee.
*Should schools or churches lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex issues?
Depends on exactly how they advocate. If they limit their advocacy to statements of their religion's beliefs then that's fine. If they start telling people how to vote or endorsing specific candidates then they've crossed the line into political activity and should lose their tax-exempt status. And note that this is already what the law says in theory, the US government is just incredibly bad about enforcing the law and won't even remove tax-exempt status from churches that openly say "we're breaking this law because we hate it".
*Can religious based adoption or other services be forced to not discriminate against same sex marrieds for those services?
Yes. This is a case where the religious organization is no longer a private club (which indisputably has the right to limit who participates in it) and is acting as a business serving the general public. And, much like providing marriage paperwork, they're doing it in an area where they're acting as a representative of the government. If they don't want to serve everyone without discrimination then they should get out of the adoption business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: Not at all, there is no indication that further undermining the socio-relational contract of marriage (it is already butchered beyond belief) would have any positive effect on any of this and every reason to expect it would further dis-enfranchise the average member of the population to give even less credence to valuing traditional values. (traditions that WORK and are USEFUL).
This is only true when you define "traditional values" to include "gay people are filthy sinners and should be constantly reminded that they will soon be burning in hell (if not beaten to death to send them there faster)". With any reasonable non-bigoted definition of "traditional values" there is no threat at all. In fact, by giving formal recognition to gay couples (who already exist and are not going to stop existing just because they don't get a legal contract) you're bringing them into "traditional values" and giving them the same stability and support that every other marriage provides.
MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.
Lol no.
We allow infertile M+F couples to marry.
We allow M+F couples who don't want to have kids to marry.
We allow M+F couples with children from previous relationships to marry.
We allow M+F couples who adopt children to marry.
We allow M+F couples to permanently remove their ability to have children without any effect on their marriage.
This claim that marriage is inherently about the genetic parents of a child raising that child is completely ing absurd. The only real question here is whether you're genuinely ignorant of all of the many ways that your definition doesn't match reality, or if your entire reason for opposing gay marriage is "eww, gay is gross" and you're just looking for a way to argue against it without getting banned.
Frazzled wrote: How is that getting involved in politics if your church doesn't permit gay weddings? Thats nonsensical.
It was in response primarily to your second point asking if churches should lose their tax exempt status if they advocate against same sex. Peregrine already expanded on it in his post, as in it's one thing to simply release a statement or create rules for the use of their private church, but to actively advocate by telling people how to vote or endorsing candidates, that's different.
Depends on exactly how they advocate. If they limit their advocacy to statements of their religion's beliefs then that's fine. If they start telling people how to vote or endorsing specific candidates then they've crossed the line into political activity and should lose their tax-exempt status. And note that this is already what the law says in theory, the US government is just incredibly bad about enforcing the law and won't even remove tax-exempt status from churches that openly say "we're breaking this law because we hate it".
So one would assume this line of logic would also, then, apply to labor unions?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I might be missing something here, but how are they related?
You're missing the fact that they're both non-profits and if advocating for political means should remove one from their tax-exempt status, it should do so for all.
The OEA doesn't even try and hide it. They send out a special magazine every election season and provide a list of who members should vote for.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I might be missing something here, but how are they related?
You're missing the fact that they're both non-profits and if advocating for political means should remove one from their tax-exempt status, it should do so for all.
The OEA doesn't even try and hide it. They send out a special magazine every election season and provide a list of who members should vote for.
I'd agree with that, and we can start by removing the NRA's. The most grievous of offenders.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Are they classified differently perhaps? Might explain why?
They're all 501(c) organizations. Churches and charities are 501(c) 3 and Labor Unions are 501(c) 5.
If they're all non-profits, and all 501(c)'s, they should all be subject to the same expectations and governance.
Regulations were proposed in....2013 (?) to curtail the activism from the 4's (ACLU, NRA, AARP are the biggest ones I can think of) and there was question as to whether it should extend to 501(c) 5's as well.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I might be missing something here, but how are they related?
You're missing the fact that they're both non-profits and if advocating for political means should remove one from their tax-exempt status, it should do so for all.
The OEA doesn't even try and hide it. They send out a special magazine every election season and provide a list of who members should vote for.
I'd agree with that, and we can start by removing the NRA's. The most grievous of offenders.
You didn't realise that you were secretly Canadian? Don't you feel the call of the maple syrup, universal healthcare and the need to write all official documents in French?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I might be missing something here, but how are they related?
You're missing the fact that they're both non-profits and if advocating for political means should remove one from their tax-exempt status, it should do so for all.
The OEA doesn't even try and hide it. They send out a special magazine every election season and provide a list of who members should vote for.
I'd agree with that, and we can start by removing the NRA's. The most grievous of offenders.
Whats this "we" stuff Canadian?
American living abroad is the term you're looking for.
You didn't realise that you were secretly Canadian? Don't you feel the call of the maple syrup, universal healthcare and the need to write all official documents in Spanish?
Corrected your typo. Are we saying the essential difference between Canada and Texas is what language their official documents are in?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I might be missing something here, but how are they related?
You're missing the fact that they're both non-profits and if advocating for political means should remove one from their tax-exempt status, it should do so for all.
The OEA doesn't even try and hide it. They send out a special magazine every election season and provide a list of who members should vote for.
I'd agree with that, and we can start by removing the NRA's. The most grievous of offenders.
Whats this "we" stuff Canadian?
American living abroad is the term you're looking for.
MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.
In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
It's interesting that you perceive the rest of the world not sharing your personal opinion as the problem, rather than the problem being that certain people are trying to ram their definition of 'marriage' down everyone else's throats.
You can bang on about 'traditional values' all you want... but 'traditional values' are what resulted in women being confined to the kitchen and bedroom and unable to be functional members of society. 'Traditional values' are what resulted in generations of people turning a blind eye to children being beaten (because discipline is so important to raising good kids, amiright? Gimme an AMEN!). 'Traditional values' gave us segregation, slavery, exploitation of the lower classes, and a whole bunch of people sitting in churches paying lip service to a deity they don't know if they even believe in but, you know, it's the thing you do.
Values change as society's perception of right or wrong changes. Values that are based on nothing more than 'it's what we've always done' need to be pulled out and looked at occasionally, to determine if they're still actually relevant... or if we're actually all acting like horrible human beings in the name of 'tradition'.
And the simple fact is that in this day and age, (regardless of whether it ever actually was before (which it wasn't)) marriage is not about having children. Marriage is (as it was when the Christian church was just getting started, by the way) a legal joining of two people into one legal entity. Anything else you want to hang on it is up to you... but that is then your version of marriage, and you have no right to expect everyone else on the planet to follow your personal interpretation of how they should live their lives.
You didn't realise that you were secretly Canadian? Don't you feel the call of the maple syrup, universal healthcare and the need to write all official documents in French?
Thank you for this, Silver, it made my day (and Frazzled's response was pretty good, too!)
MARRIAGE is a legal embodiment of a PHYSICAL reality namely that two parents WHO ARE ALWAYS a man and woman are ALWAYS the cause of a child, it is TRANSGENERATIONAL in that it anchors the responsibility of the family into a ceremony among peers, and the community itself helps hold it together and that that child is safest and best care for in every statistical analysis EVER done if both those parent s are together, legally protected to bring up a CHILD together, in one home, you cannot argue your way out of it, you can name call against it, squeeze stats, lie, make stuff up, be appalled all you want but you are going to convince a room filled with your own type of idiot if you do not take seriously all the other things I have mentioned.
In other words MARRIAGE is a legal mirror of a physical reality surrounding a BABY'S birth
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
It's interesting that you perceive the rest of the world not sharing your personal opinion as the problem, rather than the problem being that certain people are trying to ram their definition of 'marriage' down everyone else's throats.
You can bang on about 'traditional values' all you want... but 'traditional values' are what resulted in women being confined to the kitchen and bedroom and unable to be functional members of society. 'Traditional values' are what resulted in generations of people turning a blind eye to children being beaten (because discipline is so important to raising good kids, amiright? Gimme an AMEN!). 'Traditional values' gave us segregation, slavery, exploitation of the lower classes, and a whole bunch of people sitting in churches paying lip service to a deity they don't know if they even believe in but, you know, it's the thing you do.
Values change as society's perception of right or wrong changes. Values that are based on nothing more than 'it's what we've always done' need to be pulled out and looked at occasionally, to determine if they're still actually relevant... or if we're actually all acting like horrible human beings in the name of 'tradition'.
And the simple fact is that in this day and age, (regardless of whether it ever actually was before (which it wasn't)) marriage is not about having children. Marriage is (as it was when the Christian church was just getting started, by the way) a legal joining of two people into one legal entity. Anything else you want to hang on it is up to you... but that is then your version of marriage, and you have no right to expect everyone else on the planet to follow your personal interpretation of how they should live their lives.
Already read that a county clerk here in Texas is refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses on the grounds that they have the right to their freedom of religion. Denying someone government services based on religion (your's or their's) is a violation of the First Amendment, in my opinion. The entire point behind the freedom of religion aspect in the First Amendment is to guarantee that there will be no official state religion. Once you start using your religion to justify your actions/laws, then you are, by default, trying to establish a state religion.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Already read that a county clerk here in Texas is refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses on the grounds that they have the right to their freedom of religion. Denying someone government services based on religion (your's or their's) is a violation of the First Amendment, in my opinion. The entire point behind the freedom of religion aspect in the First Amendment is to guarantee that there will be no official state religion. Once you start using your religion to justify your actions/laws, then you are, by default, trying to establish a state religion.
I read other localities in the South are backing out of printing marriage licences altogther. That's one way to deal with the change. Take your ball and go home.
If you're a government official and you can't carry out one of your primary functions due to religious objections, the professional thing to do is to resign and find another position that does not compromise your religious principles. These places are just begging for costly lawsuits.
If you're a government official and you can't carry out one of your primary functions due to religious objections, the professional thing to do is to resign and find another position that does not compromise your religious principles. These places are just begging for costly lawsuits.
I thought the "professional" thing to do was to challenge them to a "ladder match"
I agree, although personally, if I were that person's supervisor, I'd be all "ohh, you publicly state that you ain't gonna do your job because of your relgion?? You got till first break to clear out yo' gak"
Sienisoturi wrote: You implied the casuation quite heavily though, or are you admitting that modern family model might be inferior to the old one, as the things might be better overall due to technology, which could have compensated for the worse family model. I do not know what you were arguing before, but from a quick look it appears that you were arguing simply about is the modern family model better or worse, and not about are things overall better or worse. Might be a misunderstanding though from you or me.
It was my first post, I hadn’t made any argument before then. And I wasn’t implying any causation between the two. I was merely pointing out the argument presented, that things were so much worse now because of the decline of marriage was factually wrong, because things aren’t so much worse now.
Exactly why things have been getting better is up for all kinds of debate, and personally I think marriage has nothing to do with it – both because other factors are so much important, and because I suspect the divorce rate is a pretty poor measure of marriage (there have always been a whole lot of kids born out of wedlock, and a lot of couples would separate but not legally divorce – I think single parent families weren’t that much less common than today).
Maybe I didn’t make that clear, or maybe you read more in to my post than was there. It doesn’t much matter, but hopefully now my point is clear.
Ah, fair point, my bad But that said, do you really need the links and sources? That teen pregnancy, teen crime, drug use and most other indicators have been in consistent decline since the early to mid-90s is not controversial. Just google for five minutes and you’ll find dozens of charts and tables with the information I gave.
cincydooley wrote: While I agree with you in full, that's sadly not how it seems to work anymore in the United States.
I'm not sure the 'anymore' part there is necessary. The US just has a much stronger activist culture than elsewhere, and especially more than in Australia.
This is a good thing and a bad thing. On gay marriage, for instance, there’s vastly more popular support for it Australia than in the US, but while you’ve gone through loads of state referendums and laws passed and rejected, finally culminating in the SC decision to establish it nationwide, here in Australia we’ve done nothing. Something like 70 to 80% of Australians believe it should exist, but after we say it we just go back to talking about home renovations and The Voice.
FWIW, Catholic Churches in Cincinnati are incredibly strict about their wedding policies. Most of them have, at minimum, a 6 month "member of the parish" requirement, in addition to the requirements of pre-Cana, multiple meetings with the priest, etc.
Yeah, that is similar to our experience with the first couple of churches we went to. The third place we tried, though, the priest was a former missionary, and explained to us that compared to the real work done there, he didn’t care much for the formal rules of the church. He still wanted us to meet him a few times, and he wanted to ensure our children would be raised Catholic, and he even gave a fairly half-hearted attempt to convert me
According to this, which I know is Slate, and not really a "peer reviewed, industry standard" academic publication, income levels actually do not matter much at all in regards to the odds of children of single-parent households becoming a part of "the system"
Thanks for posting that, it was an excellent read. I won’t go as far as saying it’s changed my opinion, but it’s certainly changed it, made it less extreme. It was interesting to see the article mention the split in approach between college and non-college educated people – it’s an observation I’ve read a fair bit about and even raised on dakka a few times, but something I didn’t actually factor in to my thinking on the overall impact of marriage. Which was a weird oversight.
However, I do agree with you that economic "freedom" and income are probably the biggest factor in nearly any crime statistics, and not just whether we're looking at where a criminal "comes from"
It’s the economy, stupid
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: The number of single parent households is steadily climbing NOT dropping. God only knows where you dragged up your graphs, because they aren't measuring the right thing that's for sure
You didn’t actually look at the graphs, did you? Didn’t even read the titles? If you had, you’d have learned they measure the rates of various metrics used to measure dysfunctional and delinquent teen behaviour – crime, drug use, teen pregnancy etc. And all of those measures show a decline in negative behaviour. As such your argument that a decline in marriage is leading to a decline in society becomes fantasy, because there is no decline in society.
I am sick to the back teeth of people wading into a debate they simply have no part in how many people on this post are even married? How many have done youth work? How many work with at risk young people?
Yes, yes and yes. And, interesting story, the work I did with young people was through my cousin’s church, and directly led to me having very negative, unfair opinions of the church for a long time afterwards.
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
Doctrine will provide a single, certain and unchanging definition. That’s kind of the point of doctrine, but that doesn’t make the definition true or useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Already read that a county clerk here in Texas is refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses on the grounds that they have the right to their freedom of religion. Denying someone government services based on religion (your's or their's) is a violation of the First Amendment, in my opinion. The entire point behind the freedom of religion aspect in the First Amendment is to guarantee that there will be no official state religion. Once you start using your religion to justify your actions/laws, then you are, by default, trying to establish a state religion.
Ultimately I see that as no different to an ultra-orthodox Jew refusing to work on Saturday, when they're employed as a football umpire or some other jobs that really needs them working on Saturday.
They're free to have their religious opinion, but if it means they can't do the job, then they don't keep doing the job. There needn’t be any malice in letting them go, but they have to go.
Gay marriage = gay weddings = wedding cakes = more wedding cakes for me
IF you are against gay marriages, the by associative property, you are against cake. Which makes you a heathen.
religion, children, and family have nothing to do with gay marriage.
A wedding is a religious ceremony. Priests can, and should, deny their services to couples they do not see fitting in with their religion.
A marriage certificate however is a legal contract that gives the parties involved certain rights and privileges to each others stuff when alive and after their partner dies. Also it effects your taxes.
A gay couple has every right that a strait one does to spend their life with someone with all the legal ramifications that a strait person does. Whether or not kids end up involved has no bearing on their ability to do so. Whether or not they choose to have a ceremony and/or how also has nothing to do with it.
The only question is "If two people choose to spend their lives together are they entitled to the same legal status as others regardless of their biology?" The supreme court voted yes.
Sienisoturi wrote: You implied the casuation quite heavily though, or are you admitting that modern family model might be inferior to the old one, as the things might be better overall due to technology, which could have compensated for the worse family model. I do not know what you were arguing before, but from a quick look it appears that you were arguing simply about is the modern family model better or worse, and not about are things overall better or worse. Might be a misunderstanding though from you or me.
It was my first post, I hadn’t made any argument before then. And I wasn’t implying any causation between the two. I was merely pointing out the argument presented, that things were so much worse now because of the decline of marriage was factually wrong, because things aren’t so much worse now.
Exactly why things have been getting better is up for all kinds of debate, and personally I think marriage has nothing to do with it – both because other factors are so much important, and because I suspect the divorce rate is a pretty poor measure of marriage (there have always been a whole lot of kids born out of wedlock, and a lot of couples would separate but not legally divorce – I think single parent families weren’t that much less common than today).
Maybe I didn’t make that clear, or maybe you read more in to my post than was there. It doesn’t much matter, but hopefully now my point is clear.
Ah, fair point, my bad But that said, do you really need the links and sources? That teen pregnancy, teen crime, drug use and most other indicators have been in consistent decline since the early to mid-90s is not controversial. Just google for five minutes and you’ll find dozens of charts and tables with the information I gave.
cincydooley wrote: While I agree with you in full, that's sadly not how it seems to work anymore in the United States.
I'm not sure the 'anymore' part there is necessary. The US just has a much stronger activist culture than elsewhere, and especially more than in Australia.
This is a good thing and a bad thing. On gay marriage, for instance, there’s vastly more popular support for it Australia than in the US, but while you’ve gone through loads of state referendums and laws passed and rejected, finally culminating in the SC decision to establish it nationwide, here in Australia we’ve done nothing. Something like 70 to 80% of Australians believe it should exist, but after we say it we just go back to talking about home renovations and The Voice.
FWIW, Catholic Churches in Cincinnati are incredibly strict about their wedding policies. Most of them have, at minimum, a 6 month "member of the parish" requirement, in addition to the requirements of pre-Cana, multiple meetings with the priest, etc.
Yeah, that is similar to our experience with the first couple of churches we went to. The third place we tried, though, the priest was a former missionary, and explained to us that compared to the real work done there, he didn’t care much for the formal rules of the church. He still wanted us to meet him a few times, and he wanted to ensure our children would be raised Catholic, and he even gave a fairly half-hearted attempt to convert me
According to this, which I know is Slate, and not really a "peer reviewed, industry standard" academic publication, income levels actually do not matter much at all in regards to the odds of children of single-parent households becoming a part of "the system"
Thanks for posting that, it was an excellent read. I won’t go as far as saying it’s changed my opinion, but it’s certainly changed it, made it less extreme. It was interesting to see the article mention the split in approach between college and non-college educated people – it’s an observation I’ve read a fair bit about and even raised on dakka a few times, but something I didn’t actually factor in to my thinking on the overall impact of marriage. Which was a weird oversight.
However, I do agree with you that economic "freedom" and income are probably the biggest factor in nearly any crime statistics, and not just whether we're looking at where a criminal "comes from"
It’s the economy, stupid
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ConanMan wrote: The number of single parent households is steadily climbing NOT dropping. God only knows where you dragged up your graphs, because they aren't measuring the right thing that's for sure
You didn’t actually look at the graphs, did you? Didn’t even read the titles? If you had, you’d have learned they measure the rates of various metrics used to measure dysfunctional and delinquent teen behaviour – crime, drug use, teen pregnancy etc. And all of those measures show a decline in negative behaviour. As such your argument that a decline in marriage is leading to a decline in society becomes fantasy, because there is no decline in society.
I am sick to the back teeth of people wading into a debate they simply have no part in how many people on this post are even married? How many have done youth work? How many work with at risk young people?
Yes, yes and yes. And, interesting story, the work I did with young people was through my cousin’s church, and directly led to me having very negative, unfair opinions of the church for a long time afterwards.
The fact that owe cannot t even recognise this definition, and are incapable of agreeing what *IS* marriage any more - THAT IS the problem, because you who don't know will outnumber those that do to all our detriment
Doctrine will provide a single, certain and unchanging definition. That’s kind of the point of doctrine, but that doesn’t make the definition true or useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Already read that a county clerk here in Texas is refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses on the grounds that they have the right to their freedom of religion. Denying someone government services based on religion (your's or their's) is a violation of the First Amendment, in my opinion. The entire point behind the freedom of religion aspect in the First Amendment is to guarantee that there will be no official state religion. Once you start using your religion to justify your actions/laws, then you are, by default, trying to establish a state religion.
Ultimately I see that as no different to an ultra-orthodox Jew refusing to work on Saturday, when they're employed as a football umpire or some other jobs that really needs them working on Saturday.
They're free to have their religious opinion, but if it means they can't do the job, then they don't keep doing the job. There needn’t be any malice in letting them go, but they have to go.
I think that most people understand there is a difference between being compelled to do something that is a personal sin -- for example, orthodox Jew working on the Sabbath -- and doing something that facilitates other people to do something that you feel would be a sin if you did it personally.
For example, imagine you as a Christian do not believe in Hindu marriage, since you do not believe in Hindu religion. But you are a government clerk whose job it is to register other people's marriages. It is not a religious function. If the marriage is from a different religion to yours, that is not your personal sin to register it, and you do not need to be concerned about it.
You didn't realise that you were secretly Canadian? Don't you feel the call of the maple syrup, universal healthcare and the need to write all official documents in French?
Thank you for this, Silver, it made my day (and Frazzled's response was pretty good, too!)
In that case we need to celebrate the national holiday of our forefathers - Canada Day is today!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
These places are just begging for costly lawsuits.
Which is what will happen. refusals are temporary until the first letters from lawyers/ACLU.
I think that most people understand there is a difference between being compelled to do something that is a personal sin -- for example, orthodox Jew working on the Sabbath -- and doing something that facilitates other people to do something that you feel would be a sin if you did it personally.
For example, imagine you as a Christian do not believe in Hindu marriage, since you do not believe in Hindu religion. But you are a government clerk whose job it is to register other people's marriages. It is not a religious function. If the marriage is from a different religion to yours, that is not your personal sin to register it, and you do not need to be concerned about it.
Why mind your own business and do the job you're being paid to do, when there's a perfect chance to publicly exercise your persecution complex, and maybe even get your 15 minutes on Fox News?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Gay marriage = gay weddings = wedding cakes = more wedding cakes for me
IF you are against gay marriages, the by associative property, you are against cake. Which makes you a heathen.
Which is what will happen. refusals are temporary until the first letters from lawyers/ACLU.
Maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic here, but I don't actually think there'll be all that many lawsuits over this.
And with SSM being "The Law" now, those groups who have lawyers will quickly change their policies and have them posted fairly quickly (ie, a bakery that doesn't wish to support gay marriage may have a sign that reads: "No Wedding Cakes, period") otherwise, they will be quick to have their bylaws changed to support it, such as various churches and religious institutions.
As a government manager, if I had an employee cite a sincere religious belief as a reason he cannot perform an aspect of his job duties, I would likely work with that employee. There is a balancing act between the rights of an employee, and the rights of the public and the need for good public service. In the end, while I would certainly try to have other employees cover that task, if an employee won't perform an essential job duty for religious reasons and that leads to a lapse in public service, I think the employee has to suck it up.
From a managment background, we do everyting we can not to interfere with an individuals religion. We don't require Jews or Seventh Day adventists to work on Saturdays, we allow any religious displays, garb, or practice in the employees own space. However, allowing an employee to refuse a task, not because the task itself is against their religion, but because what the task accomplishes is against their beliefs, opens all kinds of cans of worms.
What happens when a clerk refuses to deny welfare benefits, because as a christrian its her duty to care for the needy? What happens when a Jewish or Muslim food inspector refuses to go into pork processing plants?
I get that this is just grandstanding, and it'll blow over, but shining a spotlight will actually make it harder for government managers to covertly accomodate religious freedom. This is why we can't have nice things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Actually several states have already enacted religious freedom laws such that businesses won't have to do business based on religious grounds.
The fallout from those is going to be awful.
I feel like explaining, slowly and carefully, to every small business owner that wants to deny gay people service: you still can. You just can't do it openly.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to successfully sue a business for discrimination if they aren't overt about it? Yes, you may need to add a step, and you may need to cover your tracks, but there are so many ways to dodge taking jobs you don't want to do when your a small business.
I'm somewhat familiar with the concept of "reasonable accomadation" in the federal government for disabilities and religious principles. I'm fairly certain it does not excuse an employee from performing their job primary functions.
Denying marriage licenses on the basis of homosexuality just became the equivalent of denying a marriage license because the couple is interracial. I'm not sure what if anything is the penalty for the latter (I assume it would be a Civil Rights violation, and therefore a crime). The penalty for turning down homosexual license applicants should be the same as turning down interracial license applicants.
For example, imagine you as a Christian do not believe in Hindu marriage, since you do not believe in Hindu religion. But you are a government clerk whose job it is to register other people's marriages. It is not a religious function. If the marriage is from a different religion to yours, that is not your personal sin to register it, and you do not need to be concerned about it.
Totally agree. Besides... the 'mortal sin' is the sodomy... not gay marriage. Just how the 'mortal sin' isn't divorcing your wife, it is sleeping with your new wife because in the eyes of god you are still married to your old one.
So these same clerks can't issue divorce papers or re-marriages either if they feel issuing the licence is exactly the same as committing the 'mortal sin'.
Anyone who refuses to do it should be put in the mail room with a fat demotion... It is up to them to find a job they can do which doesn't conflict with their religious duties, not refusing to do some core tasks of a job because it conflicts with their beliefs. If you are a vegetarian, don't get a job at KFC. Asking to only allow customers to order green beans and mac and cheese is not a reasonable solution to ask to accommodate your personal freedoms.
jasper76 wrote: I'm somewhat familiar with the concept of "reasonable accomadation" in the federal government for disabilities and religious principles. I'm fairly certain it does not excuse an employee from performing their job primary functions.
Denying marriage licenses on the basis of homosexuality just became the equivalent of denying a marriage license because the couple is interracial. I'm not sure what if anything is the penalty for the latter (I assume it would be a Civil Rights violation, and therefore a crime). The penalty for turning down homosexual license applicants should be the same as turning down interracial license applicants.
It would depend to what extent it was an essential job function. If a county has 20 people in the Clerks office, and marriage licenses is 10% of their business, the employee could plausibly argue that it's not an essential part of his duties. If there is only one clerk, then it's pretty essential. Also, being a public servant means just that: you serve the people.
One key element to keep in mind: at the federal level, there is no test regarding sincerity of a religious belief. The rule is that if a belief appears reasonably sincere, it is accepted as a belief. That's a good thing, because it protects minority practices and different sects. OTOH, too much litigation in this area may test that, reduce sicnerity of belief to a rebuttable presumption, meaning that a person could show that there is evidnece that the belief in question really has ulterior motives.
I really hope that this grandstanding dies down, because its not going to end well.
I feel like explaining, slowly and carefully, to every small business owner that wants to deny gay people service: you still can. You just can't do it openly.
Frazzled has better idea. You're in business to do business, so do it. Make money.
I really hope that this grandstanding dies down, because its not going to end well.
It'll die down one way or the other. The wise manager will eliminate these pious protestors' dealings with the public, either through termination or reassignment. Civil Rights lawyers will inevitably clean up what's left.
I feel like explaining, slowly and carefully, to every small business owner that wants to deny gay people service: you still can. You just can't do it openly.
Frazzled has better idea. You're in business to do business, so do it. Make money.
Of course. And that's what will end up happening. There has been at most a handful of these cases, and not enough people have the stomach for a years long fight over such a stupid principle.
But, as I've stated before, for creative types that do bespoke work, I can see them adding a layer of information gathering before giving a quote. Serving somebody a meal or selling them ring is one thing, but spending hours or days of your time creating a cake/floral arrangment/whatever for a couple is different.
You didn't realise that you were secretly Canadian? Don't you feel the call of the maple syrup, universal healthcare and the need to write all official documents in French?
Thank you for this, Silver, it made my day (and Frazzled's response was pretty good, too!)
In that case we need to celebrate the national holiday of our forefathers - Canada Day is today!
And speaking of Canada day, can you guys inform all the americans thinking of running up here to get away from marriage equality that, Canada has been allowing it for 10 years now. They also have true socialized medical care, payed for by tax dollars, and their kids will have to learn french. Canada doesn't have major droughts, nor hurricanes so we're assuming god is ok with it.
conservatives that think running away is a good idea, then decide going north through the liberal northern states to a even more liberal country must be the answer So tell everyone to go south young man, go south.
Alabama is getting government out of the business.
n an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.
Alabama is getting government out of the business.
n an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.
"By the power invested in me by the state of Alabama, I now pronounce your marriage contract notarized."
Kilkrazy wrote: I think that most people understand there is a difference between being compelled to do something that is a personal sin -- for example, orthodox Jew working on the Sabbath -- and doing something that facilitates other people to do something that you feel would be a sin if you did it personally.
For example, imagine you as a Christian do not believe in Hindu marriage, since you do not believe in Hindu religion. But you are a government clerk whose job it is to register other people's marriages. It is not a religious function. If the marriage is from a different religion to yours, that is not your personal sin to register it, and you do not need to be concerned about it.
To make a really extreme example, imagine a person working on reception at an abortion clinic, who spends her lunchbreaks out the front holding a sign telling the girls walking in that abortion is a sin. She could justify that with the same logic, by saying that she believes abortion is a sin, but in her time on reception in the clinic she's only facilitating other people's choices.
Anyhow, I'm not even sure we disagree. The guy doesn't want to process the marriages of people who have a legal right to marriage. He can't do the job, so he gets dismissed.
Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.
Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.
CptJake wrote: Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.
Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.
Unless making the decision as to whether or not a couple should be allowed to marry based on the employee's own moral compass was a part of their employment contract, that shouldn't be an issue.
CptJake wrote: Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.
Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.
Unless making the decision as to whether or not a couple should be allowed to marry based on the employee's own moral compass was a part of their employment contract, that shouldn't be an issue.
I think what's he's trying to say is that, it's very difficult to actually fire a unionize person. (private or public)
CptJake wrote: Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.
Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.
Sure, there’s always complications on the ground. Forget the union thing, he may be the only one who knows how to fix the printer, and he may bring in really nice brownies every second Friday. So instead you find some work around, transferring him to some other job, or build a process where someone else in the office will do the gay marriages.
CptJake wrote: Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.
Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.
Sure, there’s always complications on the ground. Forget the union thing, he may be the only one who knows how to fix the printer, and he may bring in really nice brownies every second Friday. So instead you find some work around, transferring him to some other job, or build a process where someone else in the office will do the gay marriages.
this is why the AG's advice is so confusing. The term "clerk" means two different things. There's the front desk clerk, who literally takes your money and processes the paperwork, and the County Clerk who is an elected official. In very small communities, they do both. (My wife and I got our marriage license from the Town Milo Clerk, which is such an insignificant community the munical offices are in larger town! The actual town clerk took our money, with no other real staff to farm it out to.)
the problem is that denying a person something they have a consitutional and statutory right to is actionable, so the state will have to treat lightly.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Gay marriage = gay weddings = wedding cakes = more wedding cakes for me
IF you are against gay marriages, the by associative property, you are against cake. Which makes you a heathen.
Because this had to be quoted, hotsauceman1, you're my hero.
Also, yay for struggling equality - another one in the win column!
They should let them marry too. If one marriage isn't enough of a challenge for them, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal to unlock the bonus round.
They should let them marry too. If one marriage isn't enough of a challenge for them, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal to unlock the bonus round.
Agreed. Let them suffer for their own mistakes.
Am I the only one who notes these people always seem to have hit a few ugly trees?
As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.
Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.
To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.
If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.
Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.
To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.
If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.
Um no. Both were illegal. Many statues specifally excluded them. Why are you such a hater? They just want love the same as you.
Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.
To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.
If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.
Um no. Both were illegal. Many statues specifally excluded them. Why are you such a hater? They just want love the same as you.
Here's what I would do, sue the clerk personally and the county. Most just go after the largest entity with the most money, but I would sue the person first, then the county.
Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.
here you go fraz, "you know who else was against marriage equality? The nazi's"
How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.
"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill
Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.
To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.
If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.
Um no. Both were illegal. Many statues specifally excluded them. Why are you such a hater? They just want love the same as you.
Here's what I would do, sue the clerk personally and the county. Most just go after the largest entity with the most money, but I would sue the person first, then the county.
Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.
here you go fraz, "you know who else was against marriage equality? The nazi's"
It is very disturbing that people are forced to do work they don't want to do.
Spoiler:
Yes I know there has been cases like this for a long time like doctors, but A) they knew what they were going to do when they chose their field, which clerks did not as the law back then was different, and B) nobody will die if the won't get a marriage licence.
Frazzled wrote: How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.
"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill
You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.
This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.
Frazzled wrote: How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.
"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill
You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.
This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.
I will restate as you appear to have misperceived.
1. Why sue them if they agreed to abide by the court decision?
2. If however they don't abide by the court decision then I advocate suits in the manner your proposed.
3. Ghost Churchill still hates the Nazis and can be seen any day in Valhalla gunning down scores of them with his Tommy gun one handed with a glass of scotch in the other.
Frazzled wrote: How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts???
Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.
"Nazis, I really hate those guys"
-Winston Churchill
You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.
This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.
I will restate as you appear to have misperceived.
1. Why sue them if they agreed to abide by the court decision?
2. If however they don't abide by the court decision then I advocate suits in the manner your proposed.
3. Ghost Churchill still hates the Nazis and can be seen any day in Valhalla gunning down scores of them with his Tommy gun one handed with a glass of scotch in the other.
1. They agreed after the fact, to abide by the decision. When it was the time to abide by the decision, they didn't. Not only did they refuse to abide, they had security kick two people out of the office. And since when does it take 3 weeks to get paperwork, paperwork that others are currently using? odds are you can download it off from a .gov site in mins. Or just do some pen & ink changes as needed, it doesn't take 3 weeks. That sounds like they're still not abiding and now they're just stalling for time to see if they can find another reason to deny this couple.
In the end, you have a couple wanting to get married, they're told no, they're kicked out of the building by security, and told to wait 3 weeks. Let the lawsuits commence.
sirlynchmob wrote: Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.
sirlynchmob wrote: Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.
I don't think that's quite accurate.
Your assignment for today is to go read deuteronomy 22 13-21, Then we can discuss which part you feel in inaccurate.
Frazzled wrote: How can you sue them if they've agreed to follow the courts??? Agreed completely though if there is further resistance with that exact strategy. Sue them individually.
"Nazis, I really hate those guys" -Winston Churchill
You can't use the excuse "I was just following orders" It didn't work for the nazi's, it doesn't work for the clerk. Isn't standing up against oppression the christian thing to do? It's usually the right thing to do.
This is wholly on the clerk, "Lang initially said she believed it was morally and biblically incorrect to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and said the Hood County office would not do so." It was her decision, sue her into destitution. It's ok though she has god on her side and will pick herself up from her bootstraps.
I will restate as you appear to have misperceived. 1. Why sue them if they agreed to abide by the court decision? 2. If however they don't abide by the court decision then I advocate suits in the manner your proposed. 3. Ghost Churchill still hates the Nazis and can be seen any day in Valhalla gunning down scores of them with his Tommy gun one handed with a glass of scotch in the other.
1. They agreed after the fact, to abide by the decision. When it was the time to abide by the decision, they didn't. Not only did they refuse to abide, they had security kick two people out of the office. And since when does it take 3 weeks to get paperwork, paperwork that others are currently using? odds are you can download it off from a .gov site in mins. Or just do some pen & ink changes as needed, it doesn't take 3 weeks. That sounds like they're still not abiding and now they're just stalling for time to see if they can find another reason to deny this couple.
In the end, you have a couple wanting to get married, they're told no, they're kicked out of the building by security, and told to wait 3 weeks. Let the lawsuits commence.
Three weeks is not long in dealing with bureaucracies. The counties are moving forward. The threat of the lawsuit is enough as they've already backtracked. But again, if delays continue then suits are warranted.
EDIT: Just re-read. Escorting them out is BS. You're right. Put forth a suit and only drop when the license is issued.
Good hunting Mr Churchill sir.
DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Heck, cant only an ordained priest officiate a marriage? Why are they handing out the damn things?
Religious marriage.
In Texas (it used to be) that you didn't need anything. if you put yourself out as married to all others than you were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.
What? Only certain sects of Christianity still do.
Oh ya, I forgot. It's just the word of god, why would anyone listen to him. god obviously changed his mind and has subjective morality.
psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.
You really should do even the smallest bit of research into what is actually taught. I realize you hate religion and all, so having a reasonable conversation with you is a pipe dream, but seriously.
I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies. I'm also aware, as is the Pope, of what the Catholic Church's present teachings are, and that all the bits about loving thy fellow man, you know, the New Testament stuff that Christ preached, takes precedent in, as I said, nearly every Christian sect active today.
You can continue with the belligerent ignorance if you want, but I'd really encourage you to drop the ignorant part if you want to continue with the belligerence.
Oh ya, I forgot. It's just the word of god, why would anyone listen to him. god obviously changed his mind and has subjective morality.
psst, Leviticus is old testament as well. so if you're going to use the book for reference, you should use the whole book.
You really should do even the smallest bit of research into what is actually taught. I realize you hate religion and all, so having a reasonable conversation with you is a pipe dream, but seriously.
I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies. I'm also aware, as is the Pope, of what the Catholic Church's present teachings are, and that all the bits about loving thy fellow man, you know, the New Testament stuff that Christ preached, takes precedent in, as I said, nearly every Christian sect active today.
You can continue with the belligerent ignorance if you want, but I'd really encourage you to drop the ignorant part if you want to continue with the belligerence.
First, I don't hate anyone, nor any religion.
The bible lies? tsk tsk, are you sure you're a christian? If you believe any part of the bible is a Lie, then how can you take any other part as gospel? Maybe you have them backwards and what you think are lies are the truth, and what you think is the truth is really the lies. I know what some christians teach, they cherry picked the bible for just the good bits and teach that, while ignoring everything else.
Why don't all you christians get together once and for all figure out what bible you're following and what parts. There's 42,000 different sects of christians because no two people can agree on anything the bible says. Or at the very least pick the sect that are the true christians, then call out all the others publicly as non-christian. The anti marriage crowd likes quoting leviticus, as they allow leviticus then deuteronomy is also allowed. I bet this clerk is in the pro leviticus camp, but if that's not your sect's belief, then move along. I'd bet your sect teaches genesis though, so again that allows for the old testament to be relevant. See this is why God sent Mohammad, so he could set the record straight once and for all, straight from his mouth into writing.
I'm always amazed at the number of christians who accept the 10 commandments (exodus, old book) yet ignore everything else god says and commands.
Did god change his mind?
are gods morals situational and as fluid as the tide and in no way absolute?
Exactly fraz, Not your sect, but they're still accepted as christians.
And? No one said they weren't.
You know who else were christians? The nazi's
They were nothing to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, all atheists.
As we see thou, cincy did imply it, apparently according to him, if you use the old testament as anything but allegory, then you are not a christian. Because none of the christian world does otherwise.
cincydooley wrote:
"I'd start with the part where nearly none of the Christian world uses the Old Testament any longer to teach anything but allegory. "
so my comment to you was to highlight cincy's error, and throw you another goodwin
but you're saying the guy we use to compare all evil to, is actually only the 4th most evil man in history?
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.
And that's exactly the point of what they're doing. You can't take a law to court and challenge it until you've been harmed by it, so this is the beginning of the next challenge to laws against polygamy. I don't think they're expecting to get (and keep) legal recognition of their marriage until/unless the case goes to court.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Saw this cartoon today, thought it was funny, as it does illustrate a downside to marriage equality:
Spoiler:
Thats both epic and oh so true. I don't care what you are I just want grand kids (LATER) that I feed sugar and chili too and show how to pop a wheelie on a Kawasaki with.
Exactly fraz, Not your sect, but they're still accepted as christians.
And? No one said they weren't.
You know who else were christians? The nazi's
They were nothing to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, all atheists.
As we see thou, cincy did imply it, apparently according to him, if you use the old testament as anything but allegory, then you are not a christian. Because none of the christian world does otherwise.
cincydooley wrote: "I'd start with the part where nearly none of the Christian world uses the Old Testament any longer to teach anything but allegory. "
so my comment to you was to highlight cincy's error, and throw you another goodwin
but you're saying the guy we use to compare all evil to, is actually only the 4th most evil man in history?
Maybe 6th. Temudgin actually intentionally wiped out entire civilizations. Edit: I'd say Cortez too but IIRC he didn't intentionally wipe everyone out with smallpox.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.
Gay marriage was illegal just a few days ago.
Being gay was illegal once upon a time. I think we will soon see polygamy being legalized.
It is very disturbing that people are forced to do work they don't want to do.
You do realize that about 97.2% of work is done against peoples will, right? That need for a paycheck though, really gets that motivation going.
I mean, do you honestly thing I like to sit around all day and listen to pilots bitch about the weather that I tell them? I hate it. But the law requires they get a weather briefing before they can fly, and I am the person who is supposed to do it. Maybe I should be given choice in the matter? I don't like a certain pilot, so I'm just not going to give him a weather forecast anymore. Sounds fair enough.
It is very disturbing that people are forced to do work they don't want to do.
You do realize that about 97.2% of work is done against peoples will, right? That need for a paycheck though, really gets that motivation going.
I mean, do you honestly thing I like to sit around all day and listen to pilots bitch about the weather that I tell them? I hate it. But the law requires they get a weather briefing before they can fly, and I am the person who is supposed to do it. Maybe I should be given choice in the matter? I don't like a certain pilot, so I'm just not going to give him a weather forecast anymore. Sounds fair enough.
You did not read the spoiler did you? If you would not do that job people might die, but that is not the case with baking cakes or issuing marriage lisenses. Also, I am fairly certain that when you chose your career you knew that you had to provide this information to anyone who needs it. What must be noted also, is that while many people don't want to do their jobs, it is the business of the employer, worker and the customer, but not the states, meaning that people are very free to choose what job they want to do.
It's a sin to be gay in the same book where it's a sin to charge interest on a loan. My wife and I are also going straight to hell because we lived together for 6 years before our marriage three years ago.
Whatever. Let people be happy. If they want to dedicate the rest of their lives to each other, more power to them. My wife and I are actually interested in whether this ruling will lead to getting an invitation to her gay cousin's wedding, who has had a devoted partner for the entire 10 years we have been together.
I only had a religious ceremony because my wife wanted it, and we have only been to church since then for other marriage ceremonies. On the other hand a couple we are friends with just got married by another friend who got a license specifically for that one marriage.
sirlynchmob wrote: The bible lies? tsk tsk, are you sure you're a christian? If you believe any part of the bible is a Lie, then how can you take any other part as gospel? Maybe you have them backwards and what you think are lies are the truth, and what you think is the truth is really the lies. I know what some christians teach, they cherry picked the bible for just the good bits and teach that, while ignoring everything else.
Sigh...
Cincy said, "I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies." What this means is that he is familiar with its position in the Biblical canon (after Exodus and before Numbers) not that the scripture itself is untrue.
Why don't all you christians get together once and for all figure out what bible you're following and what parts. There's 42,000 different sects of christians because no two people can agree on anything the bible says. Or at the very least pick the sect that are the true christians, then call out all the others publicly as non-christian. The anti marriage crowd likes quoting leviticus, as they allow leviticus then deuteronomy is also allowed. I bet this clerk is in the pro leviticus camp, but if that's not your sect's belief, then move along. I'd bet your sect teaches genesis though, so again that allows for the old testament to be relevant. See this is why God sent Mohammad, so he could set the record straight once and for all, straight from his mouth into writing.
That is a multi-tiered question. Part of the problem with deciding what the Bible says is that it is translated from Koine Greek. Inferring meaning from Koine Greek to any other language is complicated, so much so that there is an entire subset of theology devoted to figuring out exactly what the original meaning was. The second part is that, since we are all humans, no one can universally agree on any one interpretation of the text. You're cute example of Mohammad is ironic as well, because Muslim scholars continue to debate over the interpretation of Qur'an (lest we forget that there are multiple denominations in Islam as well).
was this guy in the King vs. Burrell ruling? Jeeze.
)
