City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Guest thebigjig]

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.

yep... just like those damn negroes... seperate but equal wasn't good enough for them back in the day... damn porch monkeys just couldnt be satisfied...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't see how this situation compares with the Civil Rights movement. Gays can do all the same things straight people do now.

[Ripper 0]

I don't see how this situation compares with the Civil Rights movement. Gays can do all the same things straight people do now.

EXCEPT the ability to marry the person they love.

 

Just like blacks had all the rights whites did before desegregation...except the ability to eat and learn in the same places.

 

Its alot easier to draw parallels to the Civil Rights movement than it is homosexuality and incest, pedophililia, beastiality, and pologamy, but guess which one is alway brought up in this discussion.

[Guest thebigjig]

I always laugh when someone compares homosexuality or gay marriage to bestialisty... because you're comparing two consenting adult human beings to an animal... I mean come on, talk about stretching your argument

 

I view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, plain and simple. To say that "they have all the rights we do" is ridiculous... because they... are not... allowed... to... marry, and if you try and pass marriage off as something that isnt a big deal and something they shouldn't complain about, then you are downplaying the "sanctity" of marriage

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

EXCEPT the ability to marry the person they love.

 

Is that necessary? They can get married in theory. They just chose not to. And if you truly love someone, you don't need a piece of paper to tell you.

 

Look, even if their goal is the right one (and I see no reason why they shouldn't get married) if they are going about it the wrong way (like the case in San Fran) then they will end up losing anyways because public support will turn against them.

[Guest Cover of Darkness]

EXCEPT the ability to marry the person they love.

 

Is that necessary? They can get married in theory. They just chose not to. And if you truly love someone, you don't need a piece of paper to tell you.

 

Look, even if their goal is the right one (and I see no reason why they shouldn't get married) if they are going about it the wrong way (like the case in San Fran) then they will end up losing anyways because public support will turn against them.

No, they can't get married in theory since most states don't recognize the unions outside of California anyway.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Yes, they can. They can marry a member of the opposite sex the same as we can. There is nothing that they are born with (like race) that says they can't do something. I can't marry another man and I'm not gay. They are gay and they can marry a woman. We have the same rights. Love is completely irrelevent.

[Guest thebigjig]

EXCEPT the ability to marry the person they love.

 

Is that necessary? They can get married in theory. They just chose not to. And if you truly love someone, you don't need a piece of paper to tell you.

 

Look, even if their goal is the right one (and I see no reason why they shouldn't get married) if they are going about it the wrong way (like the case in San Fran) then they will end up losing anyways because public support will turn against them.

Doesnt that argument cancel out the entire conservative way of thinking?? What about family values!! SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE IS BAD!!

 

Then of course, you could always say "you dont need sex to prove that you love someone" in the same way that you just said you dont need a piece of paper...

 

Either way, it's about a right... a right that you have, that others dont because they are different in the eyes of those that think they and they only should have that right. In my opinion, that is what it boils down to and in my opinion, that is wrong

[Ripper 0]

EXCEPT the ability to marry the person they love.

 

Is that necessary? They can get married in theory. They just chose not to. And if you truly love someone, you don't need a piece of paper to tell you.

 

Look, even if their goal is the right one (and I see no reason why they shouldn't get married) if they are going about it the wrong way (like the case in San Fran) then they will end up losing anyways because public support will turn against them.

Try that one when you meet that special lady(I'm assuming):

 

Honey, I know We've been together for 10 years and we have kids and all, but why do we need to get married...its just a piece of paper and I love you! *bats eyelashes*"

 

Marrige means just as much to homosexuals as straight people. It is a symbolic show of love and monogamy, and to tell them they can't do it because the bible says so(which no matter what people try to say, is what this argument is all about) violates alot quite a few lows in and of itself.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Doesnt that argument cancel out the entire conservative way of thinking?? What about family values!! SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE IS BAD!!

 

In my opinion it is (if you don't take precautions), but I also don't think it is the government's right to regulate it. I have the same view with gay marriage which is why I am for it. But the gay marriage supporters are being such assholes about it, it is turning a lot of people that don't really care either way against them.

 

EDIT: I should defend my opinion on pre-marital sex. It is specifically the one night stand type relationships that I am against. As long as you know what you are getting into, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Guest thebigjig]

Same here actually... I'm kind of old fashioned in the way that I believe sex should be something special and meaningful, and I'm saddened that it seems to mean absolutely nothing nowdays but a hobby or something to do just for the hell of it with as many people as possible...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Marrige means just as much to homosexuals as straight people. It is a symbolic show of love and monogamy, and to tell them they can't do it because the bible says so(which no matter what people try to say, is what this argument is all about) violates alot quite a few lows in and of itself.

 

You just hit on why I think it should be allowed. It is symbolic. Keep it in the Church and out of government.

 

More specifically, state marriages (where any two consenting adults should be able to be married) and religious marriages (based on the laws of a particular religious sect) are not the same thing and it needs to be made clear that they are not.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Same here actually... I'm kind of old fashioned in the way that I believe sex should be something special and meaningful, and I'm saddened that it seems to mean absolutely nothing nowdays but a hobby or something to do just for the hell of it with as many people as possible...

Honestly, I don't really care. I just don't want to here the bitching afterwards about how they screwed up their lives. There is enough information out there that you should know what you are doing. You made a choice, and you are the one who has to deal with it. It isn't up to the rest of us to deal with your problems.

 

If you decide to stick you hand in the crocodile's mouth, don't complain if you lose it.

[MrRant 0]

I don't know where you get the black/white civil rights from but my point is that the Church recognizes it as a marriage... then can call themselves married.. they keep going on and on because they want to check a box on their tax returns that says "Married".

[Guest hunger4unger]

to fight for the US overseas in the armed forces

Wrong. But I don't feel its worth the trouble to correct an idiot like you.

Do you seriously believe that there are no gay men and women in the army? Obviously they won't be "out" to their colleagues but there will be THOUSANDS.

 

Oh and no need to flame son.

I was in the Navy, and I seriously doubt there are even a thousand gay men and women in the military (not just the Army which is ONE branch of the United States military) due to the monumentally stupid "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. That's the last I'm going to say about the subject, this thread is a clusterfuck already without getting into the subject of gays in the military.

They are hardly going to jump out and tell you if they are gay. Gay people do not fit the "queen" stereotype.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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...

Simple, and a reason we've been debating gay marriage: Tax breaks.

 

The government would have no way of stopping a polygamy marriage involving dozens, maybe hundreds, of people who all get "married" into one family so that they all can pay less taxes.

 

Trust me, when it comes to taxes, the government suddently cares not about the Constitution anymore.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't see how this situation compares with the Civil Rights movement. Gays can do all the same things straight people do now.

Well, black people can drink at the fountains, too.

 

They just have to drink at their own "coloreds" fountain.

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't see how this situation compares with the Civil Rights movement.  Gays can do all the same things straight people do now.

Well, black people can drink at the fountains, too.

 

They just have to drink at their own "coloreds" fountain.

walked right into that one...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Here's an idea I had today that I felt was sort of a gap between the "eliminate marriage completely from government, civil unions for everyone as the legal status" people (such as myself and several others here), and people who (understandably) think that's too extreme a solution:

 

1. The main government tool to recognize legal partnerships becomes the civil union. These are used for all government-related business as it pertains to "marriages": power of attorney, divorce, tax benefits, and so on.

 

2. The state continues to officially recognize marriages in the following way: a church which has been certified as a legitimate religious organization by the government (so no David Koresh-type cults need apply) has the power to perform a marriage, afterwhich some paperwork is submitted to the government and processed to symbolically but formally recognize the religious marriage. All religions are free to set their own moral guidelines and principles here, but the government cannot refuse a marriage sanctioned by a religious organization that they have already approved as legitimate. So for instance, if the Anglican church decides it is going to perform homosexual religious weddings, the government cannot use that as a basis to de-certify it.

 

Obviously this is just a rough idea, comments are welcome and appreciated.

 

BTW, as far as the "slippery slope" issue is concerned, since it comes of semi-frequently: while some of the "cases" outlined may be hard to dismiss, I don't see how polygamy suddenly becomes amenable to official government weddings if homosexual marriages do. This is because the laws as pertaining to the relevant issues such as taxes, next of kin, etc. would need to be completely overhauled to take these cases into account, whereas with a marriage between two individuals of the same sex does not produce the same legal problems.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't see how this situation compares with the Civil Rights movement.  Gays can do all the same things straight people do now.

Well, black people can drink at the fountains, too.

 

They just have to drink at their own "coloreds" fountain.

Thanks for making my point for me. Gays don't have to go through that.

[Highland 0]

I wouldn't mind it so much if (some) homosexuals woud stop using their sexual preference as a sociopolitical crutch.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies.

 

The court did not rule on the legality of such marriages, and justices said they would hear such a case in May or June.

 

The dispute began Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay and lesbians from around the country have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from the Supreme Court.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

As predicted, the cycle takes the next step, and the court will review the Constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Acts. Whatever occurs, I expect an appeal and it will likely go to the Surpreme Court eventually.

[Guest Cerebus]

Was there a stay on the mairrages? If not, Newsom could face contempt of court charges before the US Supreme Court votes up/down on the matter.

[Vyce 0]

This all reminds me of that South Park episode where Mr. Garrison tries to get fired by being the biggest flaming queen possible.

 

I'm sure those of you who've seen the episoe remember the moral of the story.

[Guest JMA]

This all reminds me of that South Park episode where Mr. Garrison tries to get fired by being the biggest flaming queen possible.

 

I'm sure those of you who've seen the episoe remember the moral of the story.

Never put a hamster up your ass?