3 Down, 47 To Go

[IMST]

Connecticut's supreme court has overturned their ban on gay marriage! Now there are 3 US states where we homosexuals can destroy traditional marriage by combining our finances, visiting each other in the hospital and inheriting each other's estates.
where I heard about it

 

[Piscivore]

Unfortunately, AZ has an initiative on the ballot this time around to make our current ban part of the state constitution, and going by my parents' neighbors the Mormons are pretty keen on getting it passed.

I voted against it, FWIW.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I notice that the other two states still have lots of heterosexual couples getting wed, which means you gays are doing a piss-poor job of destroying traditional marriage. If you don't turn things around with this Connecticut opportunity, disciplinary actions, up to and including termination, may have to be taken.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Are you guys still homosexualising down there? I thought all those religious folks were going to pray out the gay.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm all for some states banning gay marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

The reason I'm all for some states banning gay marriage is that it makes the states that actually want to apply the institution of state contract style marriage fairly and equally a leg up. In fact, I might just start a campaign to make it legal in New York, and get the Falls to become the marriage capital of the world again!

Woo hooo! I have a project!

 

[Gagglegnash]

NIAGARA FALLS!

SLOOOOOOOLY I turn....

Hi

ANYHOW...

In the V.P. debate, they both said they were in favor of same-sex unions but oppose gay marriage. The implication being that the governmental incorporation of two persons and the marriage of a man and a woman, although equal in the eyes of the law, are, in fact, different.

So, do you think it might speed things up if we started calling them, "civil unions," instead of, "marriages?"

I mean, in a church service, the officiator already says something like, "therefor, according to the powers vested in me by <<place deity name here>> and the Laws of <<place name of state here>> I now pronounce you <<place type of union here>>", implying that both kinds of unions - legal and spiritual - are occurring.

If the civil union is left to the approval of the government alone, and the marriage is left to the approval of whatever church in which the two people want to be married but carrying both religious and secular weight, and a definite distinction is made between the two, do you think that would make the, "Welcome to the Twenty-First Century and Compliance with Any Reasonable Interpretation of the Constitution," pill a little easier to swallow?

 

[IMST]

I'm all for some states banning gay marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

The reason I'm all for some states banning gay marriage is that it makes the states that actually want to apply the institution of state contract style marriage fairly and equally a leg up.

I'm all for some states banning interracial marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

The reason I'm all for some states banning interracial marriage is that it makes the states that actually want to apply the institution of state contract style marriage fairly and equally a leg up.

How's it sound when I phrase it that way?

 

[tyr_13]

Sounds like it's made of out straw actually.

 

[Almo]

Sounds like it's made of out straw actually.

I disagree. It makes a valid point.

 

[tyr_13]

My original post was tongue in cheek, but that doesn't mean I'm not standing by the point that yes, this is a state issue. So if a state wanted to ban interracial marriage, go for it. I'll still call them idiots, as will most people. This is all part of the discourse, and one that shouldn't be skipped by having the Fed come in. States should be allowed to make massive mistakes so that the rest of the country can laugh at them and move the conversation along, just like what happened with interracial marriage for example.

I personally don't think that marriage should be a governmental issue in the first place, only a religious one. But if it has to be...

Funny how when Congress was talking about banning all gay marriage and I said it was a state issue people were in support, now that I haven't changed my position but Congress has changed hands...not so much.

 

[shemp]

How dare you homos destroy the holy sanctity of marriage!? You'll all burn in Hell!!!

I have to go now, it's time to, um, "tend" to my goats.

 

[drkitten]

My original post was tongue in cheek, but that doesn't mean I'm not standing by the point that yes, this is a state issue. So if a state wanted to ban interracial marriage, go for it. I'll still call them idiots, as will most people. This is all part of the discourse, and one that shouldn't be skipped by having the Fed come in.

Would you be equally fine with states deciding to have a "discourse" about whether or not you should be innocent-until-proven-guilty or guilty-until-proven-innnocent? About the appropriateness of trial by ordeal? About the use of "spectral evidence" in trials?

States should be allowed to make massive mistakes so that the rest of the country can laugh at them and move the conversation along, just like what happened with interracial marriage for example.

You obviously missed the part where the Fed was forced to step in and declare by force majeure that the discourse was over and interracial marriage was permitted. Loving vs. Virginia, IIRC.

 

[shadron]

I personally don't think that marriage should be a governmental issue in the first place, only a religious one. But if it has to be...

Render unto Caesar... There are certainly legal as well as religious aspects of marriage. You can't remove the interest of the state because it is written into inheritance, taxation and other laws - generally, those things which a civil union is designed to provide. Unfortunately, the religious (some of them, anyway) cannot bring themselves to see the functional difference, and insist on imposing their religious-moral views upon the legal framework that all citizens have to use.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

How dare you homos destroy the holy sanctity of marriage!? You'll all burn in Hell!!!

I love it when people say this and mean it (which I realize, of course, you didn't).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Connecticut's supreme court has overturned their ban on gay marriage! Now there are 3 US states where we homosexuals can destroy traditional marriage by combining our finances, visiting each other in the hospital and inheriting each other's estates.
where I heard about it

Well NY does recognise such marriages, even if they can not be performed here. So if you get married in connenticut you can destroy marriage in NY.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm all for some states banning gay marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

The reason I'm all for some states banning gay marriage is that it makes the states that actually want to apply the institution of state contract style marriage fairly and equally a leg up. In fact, I might just start a campaign to make it legal in New York, and get the Falls to become the marriage capital of the world again!

Woo hooo! I have a project!

Hey the falls could be the marriage capital, just on the other side of the border.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm all for some states banning interracial marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

And that would all be true if it was not for activist judges overturning well established supreme court decisions.

 

[tyr_13]

Would you be equally fine with states deciding to have a "discourse" about whether or not you should be innocent-until-proven-guilty or guilty-until-proven-innnocent? About the appropriateness of trial by ordeal? About the use of "spectral evidence" in trials?

Those issues are addressed in the Constitution, so no, that isn't something states should do. I think you don't understand that this discourse is to advance the standards of society so it can tell the state what to do. I want people who think that gay marriage should be banned to be able to vote in such a manner, because then I know where they are and can call them idiots. After enough people call them idiots, and support seeps away from such idiots, they will lose whatever credibility they pretended to have. People and states should make such minor mistakes so they can be called out on it. I'm a believer in the free marketplace of ideas in that way.

I think we are on the right track here. Three states have gay marriage, some states have a knee jerk reaction and ban it, but it keeps the focus on it, so soon the 'battle lines' become more clear. Eventually, hopefully, things sort out.

You obviously missed the part where the Fed was forced to step in and declare by force majeure that the discourse was over and interracial marriage was permitted. Loving vs. Virginia, IIRC.

Yeah, I missed that part. To equate the current atmosphere of hostilities towards gay marriage to those of interracial marriage is apt in type, but not in degree. Personally I think it belittles the work it took to get over racism to equate the two.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yeah, I missed that part. To equate the current atmosphere of hostilities towards gay marriage to those of interracial marriage is apt in type, but not in degree. Personally I think it belittles the work it took to get over racism to equate the two.

Banning gay marriage is not racist but it is a form of gender discrimination. Laws are applied differently based solely on the gender of one individual in the contract.

Well it isn't OFFICIALLY gender discrimination but it should be declared as such.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm all for some states banning interracial marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

The reason I'm all for some states banning interracial marriage is that it makes the states that actually want to apply the institution of state contract style marriage fairly and equally a leg up.

How's it sound when I phrase it that way?

Damn it. Then I'll have to move to Canada. No wait a minute . . .

:nevermind: