goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on April 27, 2015, 11:34:10 PM
-
Since the darksiders have destroyed traditional marriage and the gay Gestapo trying to use the issue to hurt Christians, we should replace the term marriage with life partner contracts. In the eyes of the state I and gays are contracted. Churches can make marriage a rite. Businesses can support a celebration of their belief. They can provide contract cakes when people are LPCeeded. This will take the ammo from the agitators. Life Partner is a everything neutral term and does not demean anyone who pledges fidelity to another.
-
maybe the state should just not be involved at all and stop discriminating against single people
-
it's "Gaystapo" /crl
-
Yeah, marriage just isn't PC enough for the far right.
-
http://thehill.com/regulation/239752-bill-would-block-courts-on-gay-marriage/
iowans :lol:
-
all about that #darksider life
-
oh man those meanies trying to have civil rights. such attack on Christians, so war on.
-
all about that #darksider life
Is this about interracial marriage?
-
all about that #darksider life
Is this about interracial marriage?
it's pro-anything that sends faux-moralist conservatives into a frothing rage
-
all about that #darksider life
Is this about interracial marriage?
it's pro-anything that sends faux-moralist conservatives into a frothing rage
that is a great cause to get behind.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Judge Kennedy on the question of gay marriage before the Supreme Court suggested the definition of marrage should be changed. Right now in the eyes of the state marriage is a contract. Two people who hate each other can have a contract. State laws incorporate religious beleifs into the law. My point is separate religion from the secular state. Under the law I and Gays are contracted; in the eyes of my Church I am married. If I have a cake shop and make cakes for religious celebration only, I could tell LBGT to go frost their wallygangers and shove cake up their howdydoodies.
-
Judge Kennedy on the question of gay marriage before the Supreme Court suggested the definition of marrage should be changed. Right now in the eyes of the state marriage is a contract. Two people who hate each other can have a contract. State laws incorporate religious beleifs into the law. My point is separate religion from the secular state. Under the law I and Gays are contracted; in the eyes of my Church I am married. If I have a cake shop and make cakes for religious celebration only, I could tell LBGT to go frost their wallygangers and shove cake up their howdydoodies.
good god you're a sad little person
-
Judge Kennedy on the question of gay marriage before the Supreme Court suggested the definition of marrage should be changed. Right now in the eyes of the state marriage is a contract. Two people who hate each other can have a contract. State laws incorporate religious beleifs into the law. My point is separate religion from the secular state. Under the law I and Gays are contracted; in the eyes of my Church I am married. If I have a cake shop and make cakes for religious celebration only, I could tell LBGT to go frost their wallygangers and shove cake up their howdydoodies.
what happens at home stays at home!!!!!
-
I think the time has come for the government to step out of marriage altogether. Let the churches decide who can be "married" - but the government would only recognize "civil unions." This seems like the most acceptable compromise that respects freedom of religion while also respecting equality under the law.
Yes, this change would theoretically, and slightly, undermine the traditional purpose of marriage: Government incentivized marriage between men and women for the purpose of encouraging strong family units for the creation and raising of children. Some gays might adopt children - most won't. But moving away from this historical purpose of joining two people together under the law is really just a mosquito bite compared to what has really weakened marriage and the family unit. I'm referring, of course, to no-fault divorce. That genie is already out of the bottle.
On the whole, it is more important to allow gay couples the same benefits under the law - when it comes to taxes, probate, benefits, adoption, etc. The churches would keep the "marriage" ceremony.
The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.
But all this is hypothetical because the Supreme Court is in all liklihood going to totally eff this all up.
-
scotus? more like scrotus, right?? :ROFL:
-
The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.
Why do you need to?
-
The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.
Why do you need to?
Because reasons!
-
The only downside is that, once we take this step to civil unions, I can't formulate a logical argument against allowing 3 or 4 or more people - gay or straight - to enter a civil union.
Why do you need to?
Because reasons!
Ok - so that's the best answer? We should allow as many people as they want to enter into civil unions? If that's the best answer, what is the point of government incentivizing civil unions (with the benefits listed above, for example)?
Alito had an interesting line of questioning on this point yesterday, and the plaintiff's lawyer really had no answer as to how to differentiate.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/justice-alito-why-not-let-4-lawyers-marry-one-another (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/justice-alito-why-not-let-4-lawyers-marry-one-another)
Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?
Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
Alito: What would be the reason?
Bonauto: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—
Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn't understand your answer.
Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –
Bonauto: No, no.
Alito: -- then you can come back to mine.
Bonauto: Well, that's what -- I mean, that is -- I mean, the State –
Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –
Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?
Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.
-
Well if you're really worried about it just limit it to two people. It's what we do now. Geez.
-
Well if you're really worried about it just limit it to two people. It's what we do now. Geez.
"Well if you're really worried about gay marriage, just limit it to straight people. It's what we do now. Geez."
See? You're answer isn't an answer at all. I'm asking how you can depart from the historical definition of marriage, but still logically distinguish between allowing a civil union between any two consenting adults and any 4, or 6, or 8, etc.
-
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.
-
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.
Ok. I do care.
-
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.
Ok. I do care.
Why?
-
The answer given was perfectly fine.
Furthermore its just a tactic by the conservatives to obscure the issue at hand, the denial of civil rights to many people in our country. Its a pure red herring designed to expand the issue beyond the topic at hand. Remedy the first issue before bringing in another.
-
Alito sounds like an activist judge to me.
-
i'm gonna marry both of my cats (bosco and george)
-
Lawyers would try for 4 person marriages. The complicated divorces would be great billable hours
-
i'm gonna marry both of my cats (bosco and george)
Marry them to each other or marry them to you?
-
i'm gonna marry both of my cats (bosco and george)
Marry them to each other or marry them to you?
to me, obvs. one happy polygamous homosexual bestial family unit
-
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.
Ok. I do care.
Why?
Because the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Jane and Margaret and Michael.
-
The answer given was perfectly fine.
Furthermore its just a tactic by the conservatives to obscure the issue at hand, the denial of civil rights to many people in our country. Its a pure red herring designed to expand the issue beyond the topic at hand. Remedy the first issue before bringing in another.
Supreme Court decisions have implications far beyond whatever topic is at hand. They absolutely should and do ask those types of questions.
-
The answer given was perfectly fine.
Furthermore its just a tactic by the conservatives to obscure the issue at hand, the denial of civil rights to many people in our country. Its a pure red herring designed to expand the issue beyond the topic at hand. Remedy the first issue before bringing in another.
Ok, so I take it then that you don't have an answer either, other than "who cares?"
-
i love reading supreme court transcripts. its as far as i can tell the only place left in our government where critical thought exists.
-
Yes, they are fantastic 'raptor
-
The answer given was perfectly fine.
Furthermore its just a tactic by the conservatives to obscure the issue at hand, the denial of civil rights to many people in our country. Its a pure red herring designed to expand the issue beyond the topic at hand. Remedy the first issue before bringing in another.
Ok, so I take it then that you don't have an answer either, other than "who cares?"
"well if a man can marry a woman, why can't a man marry two women?! Oh what, people have multiple wives and it's referenced in here?? let's fix this with a little change here. We can still beat women, right? OK. good, we can change that later, I hate my wife!"(sound of old guys laughing together) - The guys rewriting the bible, probably.
-
KSUW did a great job explaining why we need to separate the religious teaching called marriage that came from Jewish law from a legal contract. Gays should be torqued that they are excluded from entering a business contract. By separating the two, the church can claim the term marriage as a religious right. All persons should. be able to enter into a contract for life partnership. Then we can get away from calling each other names. The right to fully live in society should be available to all, but no one should be forced to compromise their beliefs.
-
you dudes were fine with gov. being in the marriage business until maybe 2 dudes can get married to and now it's all "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MARRIAGE" lol
-
Lol
-
you dudes were fine with gov. being in the marriage business until maybe 2 dudes can get married to and now it's all "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MARRIAGE" lol
This ^
-
Most Christian get married in a Church because of the religious aspect. I really didn't give a jet engine fart about the marriage certificate from KS. The Church is what is important to most people of faith. Legal rules to benefit 2 people who want to have a family partnership under the law, including gays, should be the standard. Is equal rights with everyone or taking over the term marriage the most important to LBGT? Everyone on both sides are angry,very angry - let's find a solution that all can live with. Liberals want government to stay out of bedrooms. I want the government to stay out of my Church.
-
You guys do know that there are churches out there that marry gay people, right? So changing what the government calls marriage won't stop them from getting married.
-
You guys do know that there are churches out there that marry gay people, right? So changing what the government calls marriage won't stop them from getting married.
I was typing this as you posted. Dammit. I was looking back to see where the US was forcing churches that didn't marry gays, to marry them. I thought I completely missed that new clipping and was an idiot. Nope, what a silly thread.
-
mods, please change thread title to Official Darksider Master Thread tia
-
You guys do know that there are churches out there that marry gay people, right? So changing what the government calls marriage won't stop them from getting married.
I was typing this as you posted. Dammit. I was looking back to see where the US was forcing churches that didn't marry gays, to marry them. I thought I completely missed that new clipping and was an idiot. Nope, what a silly thread.
Yup - some churches already do. Most don't. All the more reason to leave it up to the churches and draw a clean line between church and state.
-
You guys do know that there are churches out there that marry gay people, right? So changing what the government calls marriage won't stop them from getting married.
I was typing this as you posted. Dammit. I was looking back to see where the US was forcing churches that didn't marry gays, to marry them. I thought I completely missed that new clipping and was an idiot. Nope, what a silly thread.
Yup - some churches already do. Most don't. All the more reason to leave it up to the churches and draw a clean line between church and state.
Most gay rights people were making this argument 10-15 years ago but conservatives wanted nothing to do with it.
-
You guys do know that there are churches out there that marry gay people, right? So changing what the government calls marriage won't stop them from getting married.
I was typing this as you posted. Dammit. I was looking back to see where the US was forcing churches that didn't marry gays, to marry them. I thought I completely missed that new clipping and was an idiot. Nope, what a silly thread.
Yup - some churches already do. Most don't. All the more reason to leave it up to the churches and draw a clean line between church and state.
Most gay rights people were making this argument 10-15 years ago but conservatives wanted nothing to do with it.
I don't know that that's true, nor does it really matter.
-
you dudes were fine with gov. being in the marriage business until maybe 2 dudes can get married to and now it's all "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MARRIAGE" lol
JFC.....this feels dirty
Great point. Its great that the radical neo cons are no co-opting this idea from reasonable people.
-
Then allow unions with 4 or 6 or 8. I don't really care.
Ok. I do care.
Why?
icky
-
"Life partner" sounds so... lifelong though. Gays should still be able to divorce like the rest of us.
-
That would undermine the foundation of life partnership though
-
why don't religious groups just change their name for marriage? "Holy Matrimony" or something like that?