Your thoughts on same sex marriage and civil unions.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#93 “So gay couples who attempt to marry are criminals. And eventually, criminals often go to jail.”
No. If you are 14 and go to the DMV to get a drivers license, they just don’t give it to you.
No criminal action can be taken against the 14 year old…
You seem to have MANY basic misunderstandings about our laws & gov’t…
A gay man has always been allowed to marry a woman. A Lesbian has always been allowed to marry a man. No one said homosexuals can’t get married in the traditional way.
If marriage is defined as anything other than between a man or a woman, then no.
#91 – SeaLawyer
>>A difference in terminology only is hardly the same
>>as forcing people to go to different school
>>locations. You fail at making valid comparisons.
It’s a perfectly valid comparison. “Civil unions” are NOT the same thing as legally recognized marriages.
And if, as in your fantasy world, they were, then why call them something different? We don’t have a separate name for mixed-race couples, we don’t have a separate name for women that can vote, we don’t have a separate name for blacks who are not slaves.
If, in the end, this is really about nothing but semantics, then why all the vigor on the part of the GodHatesFags contingent to prevent same-sex marriage? I don’t mind being called the same thing as an Asian or an African-American, I don’t mind having my marriage called the same thing as a mixed-race marriage (like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Obama) or interdemonimatinoal marriages, I don’t mind being put in the same voting category as sufferagettes who vote. Why should I give a fuck if new acquaintances don’t know, with absolute certainty and right off the bat, that I’m heterosexual just because I’m “married” (Rock Hudson and the other homos in faux-heterosexual marriages notwithstanding)??
#88 Mr Mustard
Now you are just being silly and you know it. A school system involves physical buildings, equipment, supplies, employees, funding etc. How exactly does this compare to a marriage contract?
I am talking about two legal contracts that have the same effect and force before the law with slightly different wording.
If the meaning behind the word “marriage” is so worthless to you than why are you fighting for it so hard?
“If the meaning behind the word “marriage” is so worthless to you than why are you fighting for it so hard?”
Because he craves the behavior to be labeled as “normal” rather than the aberration that it is. It is a way to eventually eliminate the ability of free association.
#96 – Ben
>>If marriage is defined as anything other than
>>between a man or a woman, then no.
Did you put up this kind of a stink when they decriminalized marriage between the races? After all, the Supreme Court held this ban to be constitutional. After a mixed-race couple was ARRESTED in Virginia for living together as husband and wife in 1963, the judge decreed that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Pretty compelling stuff, huh? Good thing you didn’t want to marry Pocahantas back in the sixties!
#97, ““Civil unions” are NOT the same thing as legally recognized marriages.”
Please list the differences in the privileges and immunities granted by the government between the two other than the word it is called.
In Iran they have a theocracy.
# 100 Mister Mustard said, “Did you put up this kind of a stink when they decriminalized marriage between the races?”
No. For the following reason:
a) There is only one race, homo sapiens.
b) Marriage is allowed between a man & a woman.
#99 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Because he craves the behavior to be labeled
>>as “normal” rather than the aberration that it
>>is.
I don’t “crave” anything other than that people be allowed personal liberty, without the interference of GodHatesFags dot org bigots.
Having eyes of two different colors is an “aberration”. Anal sex is an “aberration”. A white man marrying a black woman is an “aberration”. Using a Mac rather than a Windows PC is an “aberration”. Being physically fit after the age of 40 is an “aberration”.
None of these “aberrations” is criminalized. Why? Because the awesome might of the GodHatesFags dot org machine has not been mobilized to outlaw such things.
#102 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>a) There is only one race, homo sapiens.
Don’t be an ass, Paddy-RAMBO. You’re running on empty here.
>>b) Marriage is allowed between a man & a woman.
So would be marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, if it were allowed.
Saying something is not allowed because it’s not allowed isn’t exactly your zenith of logical arguments.
Face it, Paddy-RAMBO, you’re mouthing the talking points of GodHatesFags. dot org.
# 105 Mister Mustard said, “So would be marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, if it were allowed.”
Umm, no. That’s not what the word marriage means.
No more than the word “rock” means “dog”.
Issues like this are why I support the philosophy of smaller government. If government was not in the business of “Approving” there;d be no issues. But nooooooo, Liberals and NeoCons want government to intrude and stomp on on every facet of life.
#102 – Sea”Lawyer”
Well, for starters:
1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
And the list goes on…
I would have thought that as a “lawyer”, you would be up on this stuff. I guess that’s why you’re a sea”lawyer”, rather than a regular one.
I support gay marriage. Think of it like speech. If certain speech makes you uncomfortable, we shouldn’t prevent people from saying those things.
If the though of two men or two women being “married” makes you uncomfortable, you should still be in favor of their right to be together, if THEY choose it.
(Yes, I understand that speech is a guaranteed right, I’m just trying to make an analogy that appeals to the principle that upholds free speech.)
#106 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Umm, no. That’s not what the word
>>marriage means.
Jesus. Is your argument so bereft of any intrinsic value that the best you can do is quote the dictionary??
Thousands of words have changed meaning over time, notably the word “gay”. Do you object to calling unhappy homosexuals “gay”? In the alternative, would you like to stand up at a dinner party and say “Hey everybody, I’m GAY”, because you just got a raise at Radio Shack?
# 108 Mister Mustard said, “Well, for starters:”
You and your partner should move to CA…
# 109 Mister Mustard said, “Thousands of words have changed meaning over time, notably the word “gay”.”
You’ve changed by majority opinion. Not minority rule.
So, I can change the definition of murder and EVERYONE else has to agree and conduct themselves (laws included) accordingly?
YES or NO?
#24 – “Get government out of the equation and let them do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.”
Ding Ding Ding! We have common sense! I’ll bet you’re a Libertarian.
#39, You really need to read the referenced threads before you flame someone. I have no problem with any two consenting adults entering into any civil union they wish to.
If we remove the government from the marriage business, you can call your union whatever you want to call it.
#104
I don’t “crave” anything other than that people be allowed personal liberty, without the interference of GodHatesFags dot org bigots.
Then pass a law that separates the church from the state wrt marriage.
#111 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>You and your partner should move to CA…
Why, does the illegal gay marriage in CA provide all those benefits, in violation of not only CA state law but FEDERAL law as well?
>>ou’ve changed by majority opinion.
>>Not minority rule.
Are you seriously proposing that letting people do what they want to in the privacy of their own lives is “minority RULE”? Sheesh.
>>So, I can change the definition of murder and
>>EVERYONE else has to agree and conduct themselves
>>(laws included) accordingly?
If you can get up a significant minority, you can change the meaning of anything you like, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANYONE ELSE.
Murder doesn’t fit that bill.
I oppose because for me marriage means between man and woman, being able to conceive kids and raise them. Two men or two women cannot conceive kids naturally. That’s just a big no for me.
That doesn’t mean I hate gays/lesbians or am I against science helping couples to have kids. It also doesn’t mean adoption is out of the picture. I just prefer the natural way.
this one is so easy
mar·riage
1. a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.
Gender has nothing to do with it unless we consider personal beliefs religious convictions ect. Sense we in the US have a separation of church and state by law and are minority rights protected by law this is a no brainier. As far as the State is concerned they should only recognize Civil Unions marriage has can and always will mean what people will make of it. The State has no business in this, to do so only will start discriminating.
BTW if you are of a belief that polygamy is ok that should be fine too as long as all parties in the union are in agreement.
IMHO the intolerance here comes from people thinking there god has told them what is right for them is the way is should be for everyone, plus some sort of Mormon/gay/whatever xenophobia.
Odd LDS spent so much money on prop 8 you would think they would understand the issue.
#115 – Loser
>>If we remove the government from the marriage
>>business, you can call your union whatever you want
>>to call it.
I might support that too (although I’m not sure how you’d get around the marriage “benefits” that couples get now issue), but that’s a bigger issue.
In the meantime, let’s support personal LIBERTY, shall we?
I oppose because for me marriage means between man and woman, being able to conceive kids and raise them. Two men or two women cannot conceive kids naturally. That’s just a big no for me.
That doesn’t mean I hate gays/lesbians or am I against science helping couples to have kids. It also doesn’t mean adoption is out of the picture. I just prefer the natural way.
What I don’t like is that people seem to think if someone is against anything “gay” that they don’t deserve to live. That’s sure is helping your position alright.
As I said earlier, this is a much longer debate that going to be solved. Just say whether you are against or for and be done with it…no bashing, no name calling, no threats. Can you live with that because I tell you, you already are.
#113 🙂
I think the US Declaration of Independence says it very well:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Why the bias towards opposite-sex marriages? Because those are the ones that produce children. Now our world is over-populated, and we don’t “need” as many children. There’s no new territory for expanding families. Food production has increased, and could increase further, but this comes at a cost to the environment.
Some groups indulge in over-breeding for selfish reasons (“who will look after me in my old age?”, or promote excessive breeding for ideological reasons e.g. the Vatican ban on contraception, the Muslim takeover underway in Europe, or the “Quiverfull” tribes in the USA. These groups may “win” the “race”, but I’m glad I won’t be around to witness the consequences.
#117, We can’t expect liberty as long as you have to ask the state for permission.
When that is gone, we’ll have liberty. Not until.
#118 -Theo
>>I oppose because for me marriage means between man
>>and woman, being able to conceive kids and raise
>>them.
Great. You’re free to do just that. And for people for whom that’s NOT what marriage means (marriages where one or both of the members is sterile, those who voluntarily choose not to have children, same-sex couples, people who marry too old to have children), why not allow them the same persona liberty??
Is it THAT important that everyone think just like you, act just like you, be just like you?
I keep trying to wrap my head around “arguments” against same sex marriage, but they always come around to the same point — they don’t want it because they don’t want it and they are slightly in the majority.
EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT they make can be refuted quite easily. However, the logic of secular thought tends to make religious nuts go crazy.
Yep, guess what, I just called all of you nay-sayers religious nuts. Deal. We are in a secular society that has integrated “marriage” as a contract into the laws of the society. You ALL screwed yourselves by doing this, as at some point the twisted logic you used to get these special contracts will have to unravel.
Connecticut and Massachusetts have already unraveled it for you. The courts will HAVE to recognize their marriages, as it is a constitutional, state-crossing event, not just one state saying I can’t cook potatoes a certain way. ALL of the anti-gay laws that have been passed will eventually be struck down, not just because they are against (in some cases) their own state constitutions, but because they are WRONG.
Underlying all this is homophobia — and the unreasoning fears some people have against others WITH NO UNDERLYING REASON. You don’t know me or my partners (who were married in Canada), but oh oh, I just said partners and married, didn’t I.
You now fear me without any idea who I am.
Good for you, bigot.