GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm going to try to get a little flowchart here then, to help illustrate this viewpoint for the folks like me who don't quite get it.

 

 

Current Day: No gay marriage. All is well

 

---->Gay civil unions are allowed

 

3 people get hitched at once thus SCREWING the government horribly.

 

I mean, I see the Point A and Point C here, but I fail to draw the conclusion that Gay Civil Unions is Point B.

Mike and others seem think that marriage is specifically written as a man/woman union in the eyes of the federal government. This is false, and why states have been adopting additional language that makes it a man/woman in their state. This is why some states have started seeking gay marriages.

 

Mike thinks whoever wants to have their state become GayLand can happily become GayLand while his precious south can be Bible Thumpin' ClosetLand. Furthermore, though, if a state does actually does get gay marriage, Mike will complain about the method used. See, he doesn't seem to understand that this is a representative government, and judges in particular are assigned to make representative decisions that the representatives may not like. Which is why they aren't elected.

 

Of course, if it was left up to the nation at the time instead of judges, blacks wouldn't have married as soon as they did, and neither would interracial couples.

 

But once you give them marraiges, or even civil unions, then your gays get all uppity and soon perverts and weirdos start popping out of the Forbidden Forest declaring that they want equality, too. Even though there's currently nothing whatsoever stopping anyone from campaigning that marraige be made 3 people instead of 2 or whatever.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why does it even matter? I would say good. We've progressed as a society to the point where we don't beat and murder people for who they are (exluding pedophiles and the like because they hurt people).

That's a plus. Doesn't mean that the issue doesn't warrant still looking at.

It's a moot point. Let's all stop arguing about who had/has it worse.

Indeed. We're more civilized and gays are free to make their case without the possibility of violence against them hanging over their head.

 

Go out and DO it.

Mike and others seem think that marriage is specifically written as a man/woman union in the eyes of the federal government. This is false, and why states have been adopting additional language that makes it a man/woman in their state. This is why some states have started seeking gay marriages.

No, Mike is quite aware that the gov't has virtually no role, whatsoever, in the entire institution of marriage. It is a state issue. They're simply providing a definition to protect states that don't want to approve gay marriage from being forced to do so.

Mike thinks whoever wants to have their state become GayLand can happily become GayLand while his precious south can be Bible Thumpin' ClosetLand.

Yes, I'm such a Bible Thumper. Do so CONSTANTLY.

 

Fact is, if a state wants to pass a referendum legalizing it, they should have every right to do so. If a state wishes NOT to, they, too, should have every right to do so.

Furthermore, though, if a state does actually does get gay marriage, Mike will complain about the method used. See, he doesn't seem to understand that this is a representative government, and judges in particular are assigned to make representative decisions that the representatives may not like. Which is why they aren't elected.

No, judges are assigned to RULE on law --- not make it up as they go. That's why the LEGISLATURE passes law.

 

If a state gets it, I wouldn't give two shits. Goodie for them. If the voters vote for it, I'm not going to say a negative word about the effort.

Of course, if it was left up to the nation at the time instead of judges, blacks wouldn't have married as soon as they did, and neither would interracial couples.

1) Blacks actually TRIED to make their case. Gays have not.

2) It actually WAS discrimination as it forbade a man and a woman from getting married. This is directed at changing the law.

 

In fact, when the hell couldn't blacks marry one another after slavery? Interracial marriage was verboten --- which, again, is discriminatory --- but not black/black marriage.

But once you give them marraiges, or even civil unions, then your gays get all uppity and soon perverts and weirdos start popping out of the Forbidden Forest declaring that they want equality, too. Even though there's currently nothing whatsoever stopping anyone from campaigning that marraige be made 3 people instead of 2 or whatever.

Jobber, let Loss do the arguing for your side. He actually MAKES cogent points. You're too much of a moron to bother with.

 

When you lack intellect, believe me, your attempts at wit are not enough to carry the day.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

This whole topic reminds me of a sex-advice radio show caller.

He calls in from Montana, complaining that he has a very loving relationship with his horse, that they're complete soulmates, blah blah blah, and he can't marry it.

The host asked in passing as to the gender of the horse. Of course, the guy gets ALL pissed off and splutters, 'I'm not a fag!'

Maybe you had to be there.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Alright, I've read the whole thread, and I think the points that Mike is trying to make (though badly) regarding FMA is better said in this guy's pro-FMA column. However, exactly what control states have is unclear:

 

This guy says:

The battle over same-sex unions is being fought at two levels: in the courts and at state legislatures. The FMA is essential because it protects marriage from redefinition by either state legislatures or the courts.

 

Then says:

True, the FMA does not do everything. It intentionally does not wholly block legislatures in order to respect concerns over states' rights. This is essential in attracting a larger coalition, which is necessary for passage.

 

Then says:

 

Even many liberal state legislatures are highly reluctant to tinker with marriage. A few states will consider bills enacting civil unions, but with the combined efforts of the pro-family community, such bills can be turned back. Indeed, earlier this year traditional marriage supporters defeated AB 1338, which sought to create same-sex "civil unions" in California that would be the legal equivalent of marriage. (Interestingly, however, a bill like AB 1338 would be declared unconstitutional under the FMA because the bill would seek to extend the full equivalent of marriage to same-sex couples.)

 

So appearantly you're allowed to do gay marraiges, as long as they don't have equal rights... Or something. God only knows.

[NoCalMike 0]

It still remains to be seen if for example CA passed gay marriage, and then the FMA was also somehow passed, how the Federal Government would act. The language in the FMA, seems pretty clear to me with the "only" to where even if a state tried to change it/expand it, the feds could come in and claim that the FMA trumps state law, the same way they are always bugging CA about medicinal marijuana.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Alright, I've read the whole thread...

You're a better person than I -- I could only stand it in bits and pieces...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You're a better person than I

So what's new?

 

I think the important part of that guy's article is that he acknowledges that future attempts at any kind of homosexual unions post-FMA will be defeated "with the combined efforts of the pro-family community" (read also: religious right.)

 

It's important to mind thy enemy. The debate about states' rights can rage on, but I'm against this on the grounds that I don't want to leverage more power to the fundies.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No they won't. Some judge somewhere will impose his will on the majority of people that don't want gay marriage, rule something or other unconstitutional, and it'll be a reality.

 

Like I've said before, I really don't care, but, imo, marriage = man/woman. I don't argue anything after that, which is funny because I've had face-to-face arguments with some assholes that would go literally red in the face in rage trying to convince me what a right-wing bigot/fascist/homophobe I am. Of course I know this already, so I don't know why they try to convince me of something I already know.

 

Them: "So you don't believe in gay marriage"

Me: "No, marriage = man/woman"

Them: "But you're a FASCIST"

Me: "Marriage = man/woman"

Them: "But that's discrimination!!!!! You're a homophobe"

Me: "Marriage = man/woman"

Them: "But homosexuals stay in relationships longer than heterosexuals -- so much for your SANCITY OF MARRIAGE argument you NAZI"

Me: "Marriage = man/woman"

Them: "But what if a man gets a sex change to be a woman and a woman gets a sex change to be a man and both want to marry each other, what about that you RACIST?!!!!"

Me: "Marriage = man/woman"

Them: "Do you believe in civil unions?"

Me: "Sure, why should divorce lawyers only fleece hetro couples"

Them: "What about gay adoption?"

Me: "Sure, why not."

Them: "How about benefits for same-sex partners?"

Me: "Sure."

Them: "So you are all for equal rights for gay couples, you just don't want to call it "marriage"?"

Me: "Yep."

Them: "OK, nevermind..."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, if that's important to you, that's your opinion. I don't think this is the law to support that view with, though. There's arguements it'll restrict even civil unions and what else. It seems to be more of a Paul H kind of bill instead of a level-headed person's kind of bill.

 

It's like using dynamite for a root canal.

[Guest Loss]

As much as I hate to admit it, the approach Bush used last night when briefly mentioning gay marriage was very smart. He mentioned that Clinton signed the bill banning same-sex marriage and that John Kerry refused. That plays both sides of the fence brilliantly, as most gay people think Clinton was in their corner the whole time he was in office, and if they heard his speech, they'll know otherwise. Also, the point was driven home to those who oppose gay marriage that Bush wants to keep marriage defined as being between one man and one woman and that John Kerry has voted against such a thing. So now, gays see the inconsistency of the Democrats on the issue and the Religious Right has yet more reason to love Bush.

 

I wouldn't say Bush earned the "gay vote" last night, but I would say that many who thought the Democrats would be 100% on their side through all this are probably now questioning that line of thinking.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't think this is the law to support that view with, though.

I didn't say it was. I don't really care either, because whatever the law is some judge will just overrule it...

[EricMM 0]

anyone who is looking to support two gay men's right to chose (who to marry) better Vote Cobb!

[Guest MikeSC]

As much as I hate to admit it, the approach Bush used last night when briefly mentioning gay marriage was very smart. He mentioned that Clinton signed the bill banning same-sex marriage and that John Kerry refused. That plays both sides of the fence brilliantly, as most gay people think Clinton was in their corner the whole time he was in office, and if they heard his speech, they'll know otherwise.

I wouldn't say Bush earned the "gay vote" last night, but I would say that many who thought the Democrats would be 100% on their side through all this are probably now questioning that line of thinking.

I, honestly, thought gays got disillusioned w/ Clinton after "Don't ask, don't tell".

Also, the point was driven home to those who oppose gay marriage that Bush wants to keep marriage defined as being between one man and one woman and that John Kerry has voted against such a thing. So now, gays see the inconsistency of the Democrats on the issue and the Religious Right has yet more reason to love Bush.

And, once again, this permits states (again, the federal gov't lacks the power to ban marriage, but they can define it) to make the choice without judicial interference.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't deny that the current definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, however I don't understand or care quite frankly why some people think it is "sacred" or "fundamental" I don't understand the problem with changing it to "between two consenting adults" It isn't imposing anything on anyone either, it isn't forcing anyone to accept, or even support gay marriage, it is pretty much just saying, everyone has the right to get married in this country.