City of San Francisco sues State of California

[EricMM 0]

You know throwing rice kills the birdies?

 

*Hands AoO confetti*

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

and that's enough to base a constitutional amendment on?

DING DING DING and there's the line I've been shifting through this thead to find.

 

Mike's gun idea is interesting, perhaps they can test it out in Compton, California? I don't think there would be much civil opposition.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, I don't hate marriage or anything, I just happen to think it can be carried out well enough by two loving people regardless of their gender.

 

Personally, I've thought this should be a states issue from day one, since who someone fucks is a totally trivial piece of information.

Find a way to make it a state's issue and a case where the will of the voters might be paid some heed and I'd consider supporting you.

 

I can mention, again, that CA voted AGAINST gay marriages already.

This isn't defiling the gene pool like incest, or destroying normal relationships with polygamy, it's two unrelated people in love wanting to get hitched.

 

Out of fifty states, at least one of the more liberal ones would vote "Yes" on gay marriage, thus forcing said couples to possibly undergo an AGONIZING car ride to profess their unrequited love before god and government.

CA already voted "No".

Couples are happy, partisan political battles about sexuality are sent to the lower echelons of government where they can be tolerated, and best of all, the constitution stays the same.

 

*throws rice*

CA voted "no" on this. It wasn't that close a vote.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Again, the problem is, if you allow gays to marry under equal rights, it allows Polygomy and god knows what else under the same umbrella. If 2 men in a loving relationship can get married, why can't 3? Why not 4? And before you know it, one of the world's oldest institutions is nothing but a joke, then again I'm sure Utah will be happy rimshot. Many people would support civil unions (even the president would if these judges would knock it off and stop diverting his attention towards constitutional amedments). But, as cruel as it might sound, a marriage has and always will be for a man and a woman. I'm sorry, you're gay, you can still have all the same rights (power of attorney, etc.) and civil unions would extend to tax benefits as well. Hell, you could have your own private ceremony and call it what you will but a marriage needs to stay the way it always has.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Ok, California is one state. 49 to go.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

States, if memory serves, handle marriage licenses as well. It isn't really putting a damper on the circus in SF.

Right but the question related to the topic at hand was whether cities handle gun registration. Thanks for playing.

 

Any rational, thinking person would.

 

Unless that rational, thinking person doesn't care to have the law involved in what people are doing in private, no matter how disgusting that person may think it is.

 

The groups who support them NOW have a precedent. All they have to say is: "Well, homosexual marriage is now OK. Why isn't (fill in the blank)?"

 

That's not a very powerful arguement.

 

Whom you bang is the least important part of one's personality.

 

What a wonderful reason to give people these privelages, regardless of who they "bang."

 

Is it proof that being gay is a choice? Nope. Not even close. Again, I do not know, cannot prove, and do not care enough to try and prove it.

 

You have anecdotes. I have basic logic.

 

Neither of us have, you know, actual evidence.

 

You may notice that I tend to base my arguements on either legal precedent (such as the courts role in solving consitutional conflicts) or actual research (the existance of homosexual traits in animals.) You seem to base your arguements on assumptions and theoretical conclusions (If we give Group X an inch, Group Y will take a quarter.)

 

I think we all know which one most people would go with.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I love this. The left has had a decades-long assault on any traditional values and marriage (no fault divorce wasn't a conservative notion) that has managed to completely erode away the institution of marriage

No. That is not a partisan thing. This is simply a change that came with the times.

 

If there's so many people who find divorce offensive, they wouldn't divorce even when they and their S.O. want to wring each other's necks. Most people just choose to take the oppertunity when it's presented.

 

So, they CAUSE the problem and then want to USE the problem their ideas (free love wasn't a conservativer notion) to justify FURTHER eroding marriage?

 

Stupid little Elvis wedding chapels all over Las Vegas weren't a liberal notion. So? Doesn't mean that people aren't using them and finding themselves in relationships they don't want, then want to do something about that.

[Guest MikeSC]

States, if memory serves, handle marriage licenses as well. It isn't really putting a damper on the circus in SF.

Right but the question related to the topic at hand was whether cities handle gun registration. Thanks for playing.

Since cities don't handle marriage licenses, EITHER, then what would stop them from handing out gun licenses?

Any rational, thinking person would.

Unless that rational, thinking person doesn't care to have the law involved in what people are doing in private, no matter how disgusting that person may think it is.

Wow.

 

Just wow.

The groups who support them NOW have a precedent. All they have to say is: "Well, homosexual marriage is now OK. Why isn't (fill in the blank)?"

That's not a very powerful arguement

.

It's an extremely powerful argument, actually.

Whom you bang is the least important part of one's personality.

What a wonderful reason to give people these privelages, regardless of who they "bang."

Then why force sexual predators to forfeit their right to privacy? I mean, the gov't shouldn't be involved, right?

Is it proof that being gay is a choice? Nope. Not even close. Again, I do not know, cannot prove, and do not care enough to try and prove it.

 

You have anecdotes. I have basic logic.

 

Neither of us have, you know, actual evidence.

You may notice that I tend to base my arguements on either legal precedent (such as the courts role in solving consitutional conflicts) or actual research (the existance of homosexual traits in animals.) You seem to base your arguements on assumptions and theoretical conclusions (If we give Group X an inch, Group Y will take a quarter.)

 

I think we all know which one most people would go with.

Looking at our respective stances, they'd probably go with me, actually.

I love this. The left has had a decades-long assault on any traditional values and marriage (no fault divorce wasn't a conservative notion) that has managed to completely erode away the institution of marriage 

No. That is not a partisan thing. This is simply a change that came with the times.

 

If there's so many people who find divorce offensive, they wouldn't divorce even when they and their S.O. want to wring each other's necks. Most people just choose to take the oppertunity when it's presented.

No offense, but that is total bullshit.

 

It WAS a left-wing assault on ALL traditional values. So, the left got what they wanted in terms of social mores --- and we now see where that left us.

 

Out-of-control illegitimacy. Skyrocketing divorce rates. Kids becoming increasingly more violent. Sexual assault increasing.

 

The left wants to look at the right now and ignore what their actions and beliefs can (and, in the case of their assault on sexual attitudes, HAVE) led to.

So, they CAUSE the problem and then want to USE the problem their ideas (free love wasn't a conservativer notion) to justify FURTHER eroding marriage?

Stupid little Elvis wedding chapels all over Las Vegas weren't a liberal notion. So? Doesn't mean that people aren't using them and finding themselves in relationships they don't want, then want to do something about that.

It bastardized marriage. It made marriage a joke. And now, you want to FURTHER erode it.

 

You know, I'll trust the RECORDED ANNALS OF HUMAN HISTORY over the opinion of leftists today.

Ok, California is one state. 49 to go. 

They voted "No" on it and their vote has been quite ignored.

-=Mike

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

CA voted "no" on this. It wasn't that close a vote.

-=Mike

FACT: Want to get people to vote against gay marraige?

 

Masquerade it as an amendment to keep your state from having to recognize other states' marriages instead.

[Guest MikeSC]

CA voted "no" on this. It wasn't that close a vote.

              -=Mike

FACT: Want to get people to vote against gay marraige?

 

Masquerade it as an amendment to keep your state from having to recognize other states' marriages instead.

Fact: So they opposed gay marriage.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How recently was that gay marriage measure voted into place?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Since cities don't handle marriage licenses, EITHER, then what would stop them from handing out gun licenses?

You're still trying to avoid the question.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

What can I say? At least I'm consistant.

 

It's an extremely powerful argument, actually.

 

No it's not. It's making a mountain out of a molehill. It has no more evidence than OMG THE ACLU IS GOING TO MARRY MAN AND DOG Rick Santorum trash.

 

Then why force sexual predators to forfeit their right to privacy? I mean, the gov't shouldn't be involved, right?

 

Because I'm talking about people's rights to consentual sex. Sexual predators, rapists, pedophiles aren't practicing consentual sex.

 

 

It WAS a left-wing assault on ALL traditional values. So, the left got what they wanted in terms of social mores --- and we now see where that left us.

 

Way to be a preacher or a backwater yokel. I can't choose which. Divorce didn't just suddently appear out of a bunch of political fighting and a free love orgy. If people want to be able to divorce, they will campaign for the ability to.

 

Out-of-control illegitimacy. Skyrocketing divorce rates. Kids becoming increasingly more violent. Sexual assault increasing.

 

And hey, I'd rather have ALL of that, as ugly as it is (although only one thing you mention [sexual assault] is actually illegal), than the government enforcing morality. If you truly believed in the independence of the people then you would, too. Even if satanism is our leading religious, the government shouldn't care unless people are hurting one another.

 

Just like how, to compare to a REAL problem affecting the country, we must learn to deal with Islam while applying swift punishment on those who try and use Islam as a reason to kill.

 

It bastardized marriage. It made marriage a joke.

 

Okay, but you can't blame leftists on that. The point of the story is that if people want something, even drive-through wedding chapels with ministers dressed like Klingons, they'll do it. It's called the lowest common denominator.

 

 

They voted "No" on it and their vote has been quite ignored.

 

Nobody voted on California's ability to hold gay marraiges. They voted on recognizing other states' gay marriage. Even before that vote, nothing was different.

 

From the legislative analysis of that very vote:

 

Background

 

Under current California law, "marriage" is based on a civil contract between a man and a woman. Current law also provides that a legal marriage that took place outside of California is generally considered valid in California. No state in the nation currently recognizes a civil contract or any other relationship between two people of the same sex as a marriage.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

CA voted "no" on this. It wasn't that close a vote.

              -=Mike

FACT: Want to get people to vote against gay marraige?

 

Masquerade it as an amendment to keep your state from having to recognize other states' marriages instead.

Fact: So they opposed gay marriage.

-=Mike

Read what I just said, jackass. Marriage always was man/woman in the law. The measure that was voted on came not because California wanted to take a position on gay marriage, but on the subject that they would have to recognize ANOTHER STATE'S gay marriage.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am not sure how making gay marriage legal, opens the door for poligomy or incestual marriage, to me they are three completely different issues. If marriage was defined as a union between two consenting adults, is it that hard to imagine that it wouldn't be budged from there? I mean yes of course some mormons would try and take it to court, but they most certainly be shot down, and if the courts are as liberal as some of you claim, then they would shoot down poligomy based on it's religious roots alone. It just sounds like another lame "slipper slope" argument, and it is assuming that nobody has the common sense to rationalize the difference between a loving homosexual partner, and a bastard trying to manipulate women and/or a father commiting a crime against his daughter.

[Styles 0]

I am not sure how making gay marriage legal, opens the door for poligomy or incestual marriage, to me they are three completely different issues. If marriage was defined as a union between two consenting adults, is it that hard to imagine that it wouldn't be budged from there? I mean yes of course some mormons would try and take it to court, but they most certainly be shot down, and if the courts are as liberal as some of you claim, then they would shoot down poligomy based on it's religious roots alone. It just sounds like another lame "slipper slope" argument, and it is assuming that nobody has the common sense to rationalize the difference between a loving homosexual partner, and a bastard trying to manipulate women and/or a father commiting a crime against his daughter.

Marriage is between a man and woman. You're changing it to 2 people to accomodate a group. What would stop a group of threesomes from comaplaining that THEIR equal rights are being violated in a similar way. Then you'd need to change the law again because of the PRECEDENT you've set with gay marriage, and around and around we go where we stop nobody knows...

[NoCalMike 0]

I am not sure how making gay marriage legal, opens the door for poligomy or incestual marriage, to me they are three completely different issues.  If marriage was defined as a union between two consenting adults, is it that hard to imagine that it wouldn't be budged from there?  I mean yes of course some mormons would try and take it to court, but they most certainly be shot down, and if the courts are as liberal as some of you claim, then they would shoot down poligomy based on it's religious roots alone.    It just sounds like another lame "slipper slope" argument, and it is assuming that nobody has the common sense to rationalize the difference between a loving homosexual partner, and a bastard trying to manipulate women and/or a father commiting a crime against his daughter.

Marriage is between a man and woman. You're changing it to 2 people to accomodate a group. What would stop a group of threesomes from comaplaining that THEIR equal rights are being violated in a similar way. Then you'd need to change the law again because of the PRECEDENT you've set with gay marriage, and around and around we go where we stop nobody knows...

like I said, the slippery slope argument.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I am not sure how making gay marriage legal, opens the door for poligomy or incestual marriage, to me they are three completely different issues.  If marriage was defined as a union between two consenting adults, is it that hard to imagine that it wouldn't be budged from there?  I mean yes of course some mormons would try and take it to court, but they most certainly be shot down, and if the courts are as liberal as some of you claim, then they would shoot down poligomy based on it's religious roots alone.    It just sounds like another lame "slipper slope" argument, and it is assuming that nobody has the common sense to rationalize the difference between a loving homosexual partner, and a bastard trying to manipulate women and/or a father commiting a crime against his daughter.

Marriage is between a man and woman. You're changing it to 2 people to accomodate a group. What would stop a group of threesomes from comaplaining that THEIR equal rights are being violated in a similar way.

They've got legal rights - engage in a 1-on-1 relationship. People aren't born polygamists.

[Styles 0]

It has nothing to do with common sense, it's the legality of it. It's the same reason Nazis can march or crazies can harass doctors outside abortion clinics or NABLA gets protection. Once you set a precedent for one group, you can't deny it to others if they have a case on similar grounds. Fact is, you are changing the traditional definition of marriage to suit the needs of an alternative minority which means if other groups wanted the right for group marriages, courts would have to uphold that right.

[Styles 0]

They've got legal rights - engage in a 1-on-1 relationship.  People aren't born polygamists.

You're getting into a WHOLE nother area there. If you are arguing people are born gay, let me ask you something, are people born bisexual as well?

If so, then you would be denying their born attraction to a man and a woman if they wanted a 3 way marriage...

[NoCalMike 0]

They've got legal rights - engage in a 1-on-1 relationship.  People aren't born polygamists.

You're getting into a WHOLE nother area there. If you are arguing people are born gay, let me ask you something, are people born bisexual as well?

If so, then you would be denying their born attraction to a man and a woman if they wanted a 3 way marriage...

nah, bi-sexual usually just means sexually attracted to both genders, but that is different from wanting to marry and settle down and have a family with either gender. At least in my experiences of knowing people, bi-sexual in general is more of a sexual label. However as far as people being born, gay, yes of course. No one can really choose who they are attracted too, you just ARE.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I can certainly say I was "born" heterosexual, so why couldn't it work both ways?

[Styles 0]

I can certainly say I was "born" heterosexual, so why couldn't it work both ways?

The point is, I'm making the argument of why legally you would have to give marriage rights to multiple couples ("I was born bisexual!") or even to those who wish to lower the marriage age ("I was born attracted to children!"). We need cutoffs to keep society from chaos, because changing the cutoffs just leads to legal justification and precedent for more changes...

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Once you set a precedent for one group, you can't deny it to others if they have a case on similar grounds.

Well, by that argument, the precedent has been set by hetero marriage to allow gay marriage. Both are 2 individuals. Polygamy is more than 2, so it's not on the same ground.

 

If so, then you would be denying their born attraction to a man and a woman if they wanted a 3 way marriage

The attraction wouldn't be denied. They'd have to choose one over the other.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I can certainly say I was "born" heterosexual, so why couldn't it work both ways?

or even to those who wish to lower the marriage age ("I was born attracted to children!").

Children aren't consenting adults, so that argument doesn't hold up.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Besides, two gay people aren't going to crap out a flipper baby like the Kentucky cousins.

 

If the law is redefined as two people instead of a man & a woman, the polygamy factor won't play a role. If so, it's certainly not a large enough matter to win votes. Gay rights could, however.

[Styles 0]

Besides, two gay people aren't going to crap out a flipper baby like the Kentucky cousins.

 

If the law is redefined as two people instead of a man & a woman, the polygamy factor won't play a role. If so, it's certainly not a large enough matter to win votes. Gay rights could, however.

Um, or LOSE votes, but I guess liberals live in their own little bubble. from cerebus's thread:

From the Pew Research Center done on February 11 - 16, 2004, voters opposed gay mairrages ona two-to-one margin (65%-28%) though this was done before Bush announced his amendment proposal but during the whole debacle in San Fran. Some more tidbits:

 

 

QUOTE 

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted Feb. 18-22 showed that 46% support a constitutional amendment while 45% believe it should be up to each state to make its own laws regarding homosexual marriage. 

 

 

 

QUOTE 

Further, despite the current furor over gay marriage, the public generally does not view a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a top national priority....The issue ranked 21st out of 22 items tested. 

 

 

 

QUOTE 

About a third of voters (34%) say they would not support a candidate who favors gay marriage, even if they agree with the candidate on most other issues. By comparison, just 6% of voters say they would not back a candidate who opposes gay marriage, even if the candidate is otherwise acceptable.

[MrRant 0]

Eh... this whole thing is about the word "marriage". Calling it a civil union with all rights the same as "marriage" isn't good enough for gays and renaming "marriage" to civil union won't fly for the straights.

 

Just let the straight people have their word and just go the civil union route and get your benefits and be happy.

 

But instead they WHINE and WHINE and WHINE and that is what is causing this. Dumb bunch of people if you ask me.

[Guest JMA]

From dictionary.com:

 

mar·riage

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The state of being married; wedlock.

A common-law marriage.

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

A wedding.

A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Clearly the "definition" of marriage isn't so cut and dry anymore.

[Guest Cerebus]

Besides, two gay people aren't going to crap out a flipper baby like the Kentucky cousins.

 

If the law is redefined as two people instead of a man & a woman, the polygamy factor won't play a role. If so, it's certainly not a large enough matter to win votes. Gay rights could, however.

Um, or LOSE votes, but I guess liberals live in their own little bubble. from cerebus's thread:

From the Pew Research Center done on February 11 - 16, 2004, voters opposed gay mairrages ona two-to-one margin (65%-28%) though this was done before Bush announced his amendment proposal but during the whole debacle in San Fran. Some more tidbits:

 

 

QUOTE 

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted Feb. 18-22 showed that 46% support a constitutional amendment while 45% believe it should be up to each state to make its own laws regarding homosexual marriage. 

 

 

 

QUOTE 

Further, despite the current furor over gay marriage, the public generally does not view a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a top national priority....The issue ranked 21st out of 22 items tested. 

 

 

 

QUOTE 

About a third of voters (34%) say they would not support a candidate who favors gay marriage, even if they agree with the candidate on most other issues. By comparison, just 6% of voters say they would not back a candidate who opposes gay marriage, even if the candidate is otherwise acceptable.

My efforts weren't in vain! *does victory dance*