930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Sage 703 on January 13, 2009, 05:09:07 pm
-
I thought this was a great little piece and an interesting idea:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/755/a_marriage_manifesto..._of_sorts
I no longer recognize marriage. It?s a new thing I?m trying.
Turns out it?s fun.
Yesterday I called a woman?s spouse her boyfriend.
She says, correcting me, ?He?s my husband,?
?Oh,? I say, ?I no longer recognize marriage.?
The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,
?How?s your longtime companion, Jill??
?She?s my wife!?
?Yeah, well, my beliefs don?t recognize marriage.?
Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it?s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another?s beliefs.
Just replace the words husband, wife, spouse, or fiancé with boyfriend, girlfriend, special friend, or longtime companion. There is a reason we needed stronger words for more serious relationships. We know it; now they can see it.
A marriage is a lot of things. Culturally, it?s a declaration to the community that two people are now a unit, and that unity should be respected. Legally, it?s a set of rights and responsibilities. And spiritually, it?s whatever your beliefs think it is.
That?s what?s so great about America. As a Constitutionally secular nation, or at least in reality a vaguely pluralistic nation, we can all have our own spiritual take on what marriage is. What?s troublesome is when one group?s spiritual beliefs deny the cultural and legal rights of another.
But, back to the point. They say their beliefs don?t recognize my marriage, I say my beliefs don?t recognize theirs. Simple. It may seem petty, and obviously the legal part of the cultural/legal/spiritual trilogy is flip-floppy, but it may be the cultural part that really matters.
People get married to be recognized as a permanent couple. To be acknowledged by friends, family, and strangers as being off the market, in a relationship, totally hooked up, yikes? it?s impossible to say without saying ?married.? We wear rings to declare this!
So, we can take this away. We can refuse to recognize marriage in the cultural sense. It is totally within our rights, as Americans, to follow our beliefs and recognize or not recognize what we like.
I guess this is a call out to all Americans with beliefs similar to mine.
If you believe that all people should have equal rights, and if you believe that marriage is one of the greatest destinations of a relationship, then perhaps you believe that nobody should have marriage until everybody does.
That?s what I believe.
-
Novel idea.
-
one man plus one woman equals one big divorce.
one man plus one man equals a great cocktail party where everyone dresses nice.
of all the people on this board, there are few i like to respect. their input, there choices of words and sentence structure impressing my idea eyes. relaxer of course, and even sweetcell (yes, tis true) . . . but vansmack is one of a kind most times, and i still feel like shit for atttacking him last week. if i had a beer and we were in a bar i'd raise a pint your way, wink, and proclaim, "no hard feelings, mate?"
-
Joe has used that line on me several times...I'm not buying it :-*
one man plus one man equals a great cocktail party where everyone dresses nice.
-
of course this discussion could have unintended consequences...
-
underwear party sounds hot, nkotb...can i dress you up in thongs or just leather belt? :P
Joe has used that line on me several times...I'm not buying it :-*
one man plus one man equals a great cocktail party where everyone dresses nice.
-
awesome idea. what a great platform for starting the discussion.
walkies - wait, same-sex couples can't divorce? :P
-
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?
-
what agenda? Help me understand...
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?
-
I apologize in advance, I should have realized this thread was going to spin off in a direction that was unintended...just wanted to share what I thought was an interesting op-ed.
-
what agenda? Help me understand...
Kosmo said the thread could have unintended consequences, so I'm throwing right-wing buzz expressions around to protect the sanctity of marriage.
-
awesome idea. what a great platform for starting the discussion.
walkies - wait, same-sex couples can't divorce? :P
we don't divorce, we have more intercourse. sex makes all the pain go away. and shopping. and we love both.
and julian, i'm done bitching.
-
this is a really great idea, and something i totally agree with and never even considered in this way. i think anything else i say will be redundant, but i mean...yeah. you can't give one person rights and not the next. and maybe straight couples will start to understand how it feels to be discriminated against. bump bump bump.
-
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda.
because only gays have agendas.
(fyi, they're usually leather-bound with gold script - really, julian, i'd expect you to be a fan of gay agendas! and if gays don't like their agenda, they should go shopping for a new one... they love shopping, right? maybe jules can recommend a good source)
-
I apologize in advance, I should have realized this thread was going to spin off in a direction that was unintended...just wanted to share what I thought was an interesting op-ed.
on the other hand i am surprised and quite amused that you decided to post this here.
-
This thread, and many others like it, remind of that one Peanuts cartoon where everyone is crowded around the pitcher's mound and Charlie Brown says, "We never win any games but we sure have lots of interesting conversations."
-
ooh, oooh . . . can i be peppermint patty?
-
I figured you for a more fabulous version of Schroeder, or possibly Pigpen
-
you can't give one person rights and not the next.
You're right. I can't think of a single example in American law, with the exception of homosexual marriage, in which one person is afforded a right another is not. Not one. No, ma'am.
-
Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!
-
Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!
nothing beats bill paxton like bill paxton in "near dark." nothing!
game over, man . . . game over.
-
Also, I am not in favor of any homosexual marriage bill that doesn't allow for polygamy as well. Chloe Sevigny and Ginnifer Goodwin deserve the right to be married to Bill Paxton just as much as Jeanne Tripplehorn does. C'mon people, think big picture!
horseshit! barb and bill have SEVEN years under their belt. also, chloe's character is a b-i-t-c-h.
-
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?
Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!
I think this article is pretty funny and right on. Its funny how some people tend to mistake their "beliefs" with "truths". You say tomato...
-
AMEN.
I'm choosing to stop recognizing homosexuals as a whole until they quit bitching about their agenda. Sorry guys, few rotten apples, ya know?
Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!
I think this article is pretty funny and right on. Its funny how some people tend to mistake their "beliefs" with "truths". You say tomato...
-
(quiet yet innocent gay toss off)
seeing how the god hate fags people are coming to dc for the inaguration to protest something, because protesting is the new reality show, i guess . . . somehow i have a sneaky feeling they will stick their feet in their mouth and say something they should not against black people, and then that will be the end of that organization.
-
Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!
I don't have an agenda, I just think the entire discussion on this issue is so tired an weak. Someone pointed out a week or two back when I advocated more people getting married because of community property laws and the other protections marriage affords that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage and therefore it would be stupid to consider getting married to someone as young as my girlfriend.
Well, if that's true, then why do people continue to act like homosexual's not being allowed to marry is this huge issue? Simply legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to make anyone who has a problem with homosexual marriage "recognize" it or whatever. It's a completely symbolic gesture, which I generally find unimportant. I just have no idea why everyone 20-35 is in such a fury over gay marriage. If I was a homosexual, and I couldn't get married legally, I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse. I honestly don't think I'd care what other people think. But to listen to threads like this, it's this huge thing and we should all be douchebags and act like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks. Israel and Palestine do that all the time; doesn't seem to work well for them.
-
if gays and straights shot missiles at each other . . . i wonder who would win?
-
if gays and straights shot missles at each other . . . i wonder who would win?
There's a Dick Armey joke somewhere in here, but for the life of me, I can't find it.
-
Julian, you are the one who seems to have an "agenda" these days. First Obama, then your neighbors, now the gays!
Well, if that's true, then why do people continue to act like homosexual's not being allowed to marry is this huge issue? Simply legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to make anyone who has a problem with homosexual marriage "recognize" it or whatever. It's a completely symbolic gesture, which I generally find unimportant. I just have no idea why everyone 20-35 is in such a fury over gay marriage. If I was a homosexual, and I couldn't get married legally, I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse. I honestly don't think I'd care what other people think. But to listen to threads like this, it's this huge thing and we should all be douchebags and act like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks. Israel and Palestine do that all the time; doesn't seem to work well for them.
I think that advocates of gay marriage would say that the fact that you don't care is essentially meaningless. The people who are impacted - the people who want to get married - DO care, an enormous amount, because it is a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.
Let us say, for sake of argument, that gay couples could obtain all of the same protections under the law even if they were not married (and I believe this is true in most places, though probably not all). To most activists, the prohibition of gay marriage under the law is a symbol of the implicit prejudice that exists towards the GLBT community. While that symbol may not matter to you, if you can recognize that it matters a great deal to the parties that feel oppressed, why would you deny it to them or dismiss their argument as unimportant?
-
I'm not questioning homosexuals being upset about it. If I was in their position, I don't think I would be up in arms, but many are, and anyway that's not the point. What I'm saying is the way that frustration is channeled isn't constructive.
In my mind, barring some sort of end of days, there will eventually be homosexual marriage in this country. But it won't come about by some movement to not recognize anyone's marriages or Brad and Angelina refusing to get married until everyone can (previously: "be[ing] douchebags and acting like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks"), it'll come about in 10-15 years when public opinion is naturally turned by older, generally more socially-conservative, people dying off and being replaced by younger, generally more socially-liberal, people replacing them. That's how social change has always been brought about, gradually over time.
I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.
-
In my mind, barring some sort of end of days, there will eventually be homosexual marriage in this country. But it won't come about by some movement to not recognize anyone's marriages or Brad and Angelina refusing to get married until everyone can (previously: "be[ing] douchebags and acting like jerks to counteract other people being douchebags and acting like jerks"), it'll come about in 10-15 years when public opinion is naturally turned by older, generally more socially-conservative, people dying off and being replaced by younger, generally more socially-liberal, people replacing them. That's how social change has always been brought about, gradually over time.
I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.
But that social change that you're speaking of is only brought about by people organizing and demanding that change is brought about. Is it going to happen as a result of a campaign like this one, where we don't recognize any marriages? No, probably not - but it keeps the conversation going. Actions like these, along with protests and activism, impact the consciousness and in turn make it more acceptable for other changes to occur. If nobody objected, why would there be a generational shift?
I understand your point, but I don't think the generational change that you're talking about occurs unless there is somebody standing up and demanding that the change occur.
-
that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage
Your mythology does not trump reality, especially when children are involved.
-
Your mythology does not trump reality, especially when children are involved.
The next time homosexual intercourse produces an offspring, you call me.
-
The next time homosexual intercourse produces an offspring, you call me.
Or how about the next time heterosexual intercourse produces a child they don't want or can't properly take care of.
That's your phone ringing, BTW. Off the hook.
-
I understand your point, but I don't think the generational change that you're talking about occurs unless there is somebody standing up and demanding that the change occur.
And I'm saying there's a large difference between "standing up and demanding change occur" like voting for candidates who support homosexual rights and being a douchebag to other people. If it's your belief that everyone's marriage should be acknowledged and recognized, then recognizing no one's marriage is a dick move. It's like the old statement two wrongs don't make a right.
I believe firmly that people shouldn't walk down the street and punch other people in the face, but if I read in the newspaper that some guy was punched in the face while walking down the street, my best way to speak out against such an atrocity is not walking down the street and punching everyone I see in the face. It's like Palestine shooting missiles at Israel because the Israelis broke the peace fire -- do they really think that's going to make the situation better, or does it muddy the waters?
-
Or how about the next time heterosexual intercourse produces a child they don't want or can't properly take care of.
When the heck did I argue otherwise? I'm sure you think you really zinged me with that non-sequitor there, chum. Man, put me in my place. Now that I've been made aware that some heterosexuals have unplanned pregnancies my point about the fundamentals of meiosis is blown away.
-
So is your teenaged girlfriend really your sister?
I still think a far more interesting topic is who is in favor of legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, and if not why.
-
When the heck did I argue otherwise?
You said:
"that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage"
And I said FALSE, especially with children.
And then said you said: Gay people can't have kids.
And I was pointing out that they can adopt.
Well guess who can't adopt?
Two single individuals. So if one gay parent adopts, his Domesrtic Partner would not be able to adopt the same child. If the adoptive parent were to die, the original parent would have a stronger case to reassume parenting of the child (or even the adoptive parents surviving realtives), leaving the domestic partner who has been raising the child in along drawn out court battle that would never happen between to loving spouses.
So you're wrong in your premise that "that absolutely all of those protections can be established outside the codifications of state-sanctioned marriage."
That's all I was pointing out.
-
Well you could have just said "adoption" instead of some over-the-river-and-thru-the-woods way of getting there. Fine, 98% of all the protections afforded by state-sanctioned marriage are currently available to unmarried people. We live in a country where 9% of our kids suffer from "food insecurity" according to HHS, and a world where 3,000 kids starve to death every hour, but alternate lifestyle adoption is such a pressing issue.
-
Well you could have just said "adoption" instead of some over-the-river-and-thru-the-woods way of getting there.
This, coming from the guy who uses 5,000 words to say "I like Gossip Girl."
-
This, coming from the guy who uses 5,000 words to say "I like Gossip Girl."
I'm putting together a fabulous piece about my new celebrity-crush Olivia Palermo right now.
-
I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse.
Can you please point me to one of these "DPAs" I can fill out for my partner and myself? Make sure you get the one that includes things like Social Security benefits, taxes and forces my health care provider to consider him my spouse. It would also be helpful if it's fully recognized in all states as well as federally. Thx.
-
another reason why people dislike you: you're pretty stupid.
Well you could have just said "adoption" instead of some over-the-river-and-thru-the-woods way of getting there.
-
another reason why people dislike you: you're pretty stupid.
I'm the most adored member of this messageboard, sans maybe Seth. Quit living in your hovel-esque fantasy world.
-
"i love it," i'm saying to my partner. a discussion about gays on the forum, and i didn't start it, and am attempting to stay far from it.
(http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Animations/yippee.gif)
-
Rock Hudson didn't have many friends, but he had Nabors up the ass!
-
Rock Hudson didn't have many friends, but he had Nabors up the ass!
(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l199/heybob21/dipMeInHoneyThrowMe.jpg)
-
I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse.
Can you please point me to one of these "DPAs" I can fill out for my partner and myself? Make sure you get the one that includes things like Social Security benefits, taxes and forces my health care provider to consider him my spouse. It would also be helpful if it's fully recognized in all states as well as federally. Thx.
do people still say PWNED nowadays? 'cause julian just was...
-
I'd simply get married "religiously" or whatever term you want to use and fill out DPAs to protect my spouse.
Can you please point me to one of these "DPAs" I can fill out for my partner and myself? Make sure you get the one that includes things like Social Security benefits, taxes and forces my health care provider to consider him my spouse. It would also be helpful if it's fully recognized in all states as well as federally. Thx.
do people still say PWNED nowadays? 'cause julian just was...
thank god i don't start those annoying threads anymore, because i just thought of a doozy.
-
Baby Julian (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=50195221)
-
My friend Melissa (http://www.thesweetmelissa.com/) just informed me that CA has a slew of new ballot initiatives seeking signature, one of which is the elimintation of the word "marriage" from the CA legal parlance:
---------------
Filed on December 30 by some (lady?) named Kaelan Housewright, get this:
It would eliminate the word ?marriage? from all California laws and replace it with the term ?domestic partnership.?
The purpose is to make ?marriage? into a ?social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions.? (Here is the filing: Download Domestic_partnership_initiative.)
-------------------------
-
I'm impressed with how Vansmack is bringing it in this thread. Of course I agree with him on this, so that helps.
-
gay marriage is lol.
-
gay marriage is lol.
but for you, what isn't? :P
-
gay marriage is lol.
when we can, yes we will.
-
LOL! maybe in the year 8392! LOL!
-
Do you say the word "lol" in real life? I'm going to bet that you do. At the very least, you say it in your mind.
lol
-
relaxer hitting us with the LOL
-
manimtired, what is the difference between LOL and lol?
please explain in bulleted form, if possible
-
when he dies, will we LOL or lol ?? :o
-
Gosh Joe, that's a hard one. I don't know if someone's death, even his, would inspire me to lick others' loins.
That's what it means, right?
-
ever been (l)aid (o)n (l)iquid?
-
lots of lollipops
right, walkonby...?
-
this thread is bringing the mega-lolz... :D :D
-
(l)sd (o)pens (l)egions
-
this thread is bringing the mega-lolz... :D :D
what took you so long for your embrace? i've been waiting for such a sweet acronym touch.
-
for relaxer, Lots of Labia
-
this thread is bringing the mega-lolz... :D :D
my esophagus goes awry ? like orange lusty zebras?
-
for relaxer, Lots of Labia
I prefer a nice lasagna
-
for relaxer, Lots of Labia
I prefer a nice lasagna
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t84/moreenz/tags/lol.gif)
-
i was going to start a new thread called "now this is LOL." but i don't start new threads anymore unless absolutely neccesary. but i'm sure, most would agree that this is lol / LOL / LOLZ.
(http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo198/JenLuvsLuke/barack-obama-is-superman.jpg)
-
Sorry to bring things back on topic when it looks like they've meandered elsewhere, but thanks for posting, very interesting idea. Never would have thought of it. I have to say I try to be an understanding person and take everyone's beliefs into account, but for some reason I can't wrap my head around anti-gay rights sentiments. My brain can't figure out why this even has to be an issue. Um I certainly could say a lot of other things but I'll bite my tongue and avoid kicking up shit. But Julian definitely brought some LOLz. Does he even listen to himself?
Also walkonby that is definitely lol.
-
the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole... that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution. If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.
What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions -- those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers.
Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage." It should be destroyed -- at least as a government-sponsored institution.
-
the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole... that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution. If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.
What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions -- those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers.
Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage." It should be destroyed -- at least as a government-sponsored institution.
that is absolutely brilliant. love it.
the last part is where the problem arises, tho - the wingnuts who are all caught up in the current meaning of marriage (i.e. both religious and state) won't see the benefit of a change to the status quo. in fact, it's an attack on all they hold dear... ::)
-
[quote author=Doctor Doom link=topic=18260.msg271181#msg271181 date=123206646
the last part is where the problem arises, tho - the wingnuts who are all caught up in the current meaning of marriage (i.e. both religious and state) won't see the benefit of a change to the status quo. in fact, it's an attack on all they hold dear... ::)
that's true... and I think it'll never happen. But it *should* happen.
-
Well, if marriage is so bad, then it shouldn't be available to anyone. If gay people or dumb people or promiscuous people or people who actually, y'know, have lives'n'shit, want to make the mistake of getting married, they should be able to.
-
the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole... that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution. If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.
What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions -- those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers.
Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage." It should be destroyed -- at least as a government-sponsored institution.
Absolutely. Does the separation of church and state ring a bell?
From Justin Bond's blog (http://justinbond.com/ (http://justinbond.com/))
"Marriage should be left strictly to religion. Get married in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, have a hand-fasting ceremony, do whatever you believe to be the right thing. If your religion is an oppressive one that won?t allow you to do it in their church then you?re going to have to search your soul and make a decision as to what kind of fucked up doctrine or dogma you want to place your faith in.
But in the meantime? Now that Prop 8 has been struck down by what appears to be a concentrated effort by tax-exempt religious organizations across this country it seems we need to be fighting for two things.
1) The repeal of tax-exempt status for any organization that uses that status to disrupt our democracy or affect the outcome of free elections by tax-paying citizens, effectively stripping our citizens of their basic constitutional rights- and by this I not only mean to create homes and families, but to have free and fair elections.
This prop 8 victory if allowed to stand can lead to numerous problems. Organized religions must be put in check in order for this to be a free, rational and peaceful society.
As members of a minority who have repeatedly felt the sting of their hateful oppressive tactics it is up to us to stand up to them and refuse them their power.
2) The word ?Marriage? should be stripped from all civil codes and laws. Let marriage be what its supporters believe it to be -a ?sacred? right. Then let?s get on with fighting for ?equal rights? for all citizens of this country by giving organized religion its right to oppress its own believers -not us! We, and all people who choose to form a legal partnership should be demanding the government create a class of civil union that applies to all couples gay, straight or otherwise who seek to form a legal and binding partnership with equal rights and privileges afforded to all those who choose to enter it. The word ?marriage? should be stricken from the law books as it is unconstitutional and oppressive to minorities.
Once that is taken care of anyone who has a love and compassion-based spiritual community will be able to get married in peace and without government interference. PRAISE THE LORD!"
-
i havent seen so many lols since the lol-lehammer olympics in 1994! LOL!
-
U and julian should pork each other LOL lol lolz
i havent seen so many lols since the lol-lehammer olympics in 1994! LOL!
-
that didnt bring the LOL
-
the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole... that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution. If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.
What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions -- those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers.
Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage." It should be destroyed -- at least as a government-sponsored institution.
Absolutely. Does the separation of church and state ring a bell?
a few things here-
1) the california civil union law conferred upon same-sex unions the same legal rights and responsibilities as "married" couples, the only difference being straight couples got to use the word marriage; it doesn't matter in what form the couple made their vows or where the officiant proclaimed "by the power of the state of ____". i still fail to see how that distinction takes away someone's rights. i know what the california supreme court said, i simply disagree with it's reasoning.
2) there is nothing in the constitution about "separation of church and state." it's an annoying topic, but as long as people keep saying it, i'll keep responding.
3) about the ballot initiatives, i bet vansmack knows which one i would support. . .
4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .while i fundamentally agree that the state shouldn't care who makes up the union (to an extent), there are other reasons why the state must have some take on a civil union/marriage. i am willing to accept the notion that if you can find a recognized church/religious organization to oversee such a ceremony, then the state should simply accept it (i'm going to ignore the slippery slope arguments), which is just the inverse of doom's anti-religion-based screed. for all your hate, there are a lot of people out there who want familiar terms (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1285514.html). Note- this was fixed (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1293798.html) in a pretty common sense way.
5) while there is a similar fiduciary reason as #4, the federal government should care even less about the make-up of the civil union/marriage than the state, to which matters it is appropriately before. in whatever form a civil union/marriage is accepted by the state, the same tax benefit should flow through to the federal side. yes, there's a sticky legal wicket to get through, and, as vansmack has once, ironically, accused me of is that this will likely benefit lawyers.
-
4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .
i don't think anyone is arguing with you on that one, marriage/civil union is a contract between two people with financial and legal implications. so the STATE should make the rules, not the churches (what doom said). it's the churches who are keeping same-sex marriages illegal.
-
3) about the ballot initiatives, i bet vansmack knows which one i would support. . .
Venerable supports all reach arounds. That's all I know.
-
My post was neither anti-religion nor a "screed." Anti religion would be to say "religion is Santa Claus for adults," which I also believe, but I didn't put in my post.
-
4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .
i don't think anyone is arguing with you on that one, marriage/civil union is a contract between two people with financial and legal implications. so the STATE should make the rules, not the churches (what doom said). it's the churches who are keeping same-sex marriages illegal.
what do you mean, the churches. i can be sure that the unitarian church up the street from my work is more than happy to perform any and all ceremonies. if anything, doom's argument is that the state has relinquished the definition of a marriage to the churches. . and for any and all religions to have any impact on modern-day society is anathema. i am not so willing to completely forsake religion and it's positive benefits upon society and the billions of people worldwide.
i will say that the debate on this issue is incredibly polarized and that polarization is hindering the ability of people to compromise and come to an equitable solution- which is how the california civil union law got passed in the first place. i might add that a large majority of the california population supports civil unions, even in the face of prop 8 passing. simply concluding that religion is the reason why prop 8 passed or failed is short-sighted and does a dis-service to the whole debate.
-
simply concluding that religion is the reason why prop 8 passed or failed is short-sighted and does a dis-service to the whole debate.
this is true. I think that properly done and campaigned, a resolution to overturn Prop 8 could just as easily pass.
-
doctor doom. as in doom. as in the doom our world will face in the shadows of planet x. as in the return of the ones that fell from the skies and gave us our knowledge leading up to this moment of conceived enlightenment on the computer. as in holy shit batman. well at least they will have finished all seven seasons of Lost by then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0bj76389U
-
Please Watch. (http://vimeo.com/3089746)
I think my favorite was the little girl with the "Don't be Gaycist" sign. Wish I had thought of that. that, and the one hot couple.