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
# 115 Mister Mustard said, “>>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?”
The civil union law allows everything that the state can control. So, most of your list.
Browsing through here, it appears that one important point is being missed. Most people, other than the hard core fundamentalists, are perfectly happy to grant homosexual couples all the same legal rights, including those in Mustard’s list above. It is just that the 97%-99% of the population does not want to be told by the other group how they will use the language.
IMHO, if the gay lobby was to proceed in a non-confrontational manner, i.e. civil unions, full legal rights, etc., then the trend over time would just fall their way. Instead, activists want to get in people’s faces and force the issue. Not surprising that people are less willing to make a radical change.
#121 – Loser
>>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.
If you’re waiting until we don’t have to ask The State for permission to do anything, you’ve got a long wait ahead of you.
In the meantime, would you suggest going back to non-voting women, enslaved blacks, prohibition of “inter-racial” marriages, etc.?
After all, we “don’t have liberty” now.
#125 – Jeff
>>It is just that the 97%-99% of the population
>>does not want to be told by the other group
>>how they will use the language.
Ooohhh. “How they will use the language”. Now there’s a compelling reason to deny a significant percentage of the population basic civil liberties.
Do you really think semantics is the basis of this whole brouhaha? That gays want to be equal and equal, but GodHatesFags dot org insists on separate but “equal”?
BTW, I call bullshit on your “97%-99%” statistic. Proposition 8 was passed in CA by a majority of 52% for, 48% against. That’s a far cry from 99%.
Paddy-O – “I think you don’t understand what “rights” are.”
of course marriage is a right, just because it is regulated by the government doesn’t mean it’s not a right?
2nd amendment and guns – example: conceal and carry permits.
1st amendment and freedom of assembly – example: most municipalities limit this right and require papers and set limits.
marriage is a civil liberty and should absolutely NOT be on democratically. civil rights are inalienable.
I voted YES on 8 in California.
For me it is nothing to do with the bible or god, I believe in neither.
But the people spoke, then the court overruled the people, now the PEOPLE have spoken again and the decision is that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized.
I see no discrimination against any one in this amendment to the California Constitution, but I do see minority groups that want to be somehow MORE THAN Equal.
#126, Why do I have to wait? Wouldn’t you rather fix the problem now?
What’s harder — electing people who think like you do or forcing them to accept your opinion?
# 128 Mister Mustard said, “Do you really think semantics is the basis of this whole brouhaha?”
In CA it would appear to be so.
Marraige was created as a means of knowing who gets what when the head of the household dies.
That is ALL it was meant to do.
It is a form of contract and so there is NOTHING stopping gays from having the exact same contract.
Cursor_
Yes – as long as it’s not mandatory! (credit to John Stewart).
In my opinion – no one should require permission from the state to get married. But, also, no additional rights or benefits should be provided by the state to married persons.
So no income tax benefits, no extra health-care, no automatic citizenship, etc
You can marry any girl, guy or your favorite barn yard animal, just don’t expect me to pay for any of it.
#135 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>The civil union law allows everything that the
>>state can control. So, most of your list.
So. No social security, no filing of Federal tax returns, no veterans’ benefits, no immigration, no credit protection, no insurance benefits (if covered by an out-of-state provider), etc., etc., etc..
Sounds just like the “separate-but-equal” provisions that led to Brown v. Board of Education.
Inadequate.
#129, of course marriage is a right, just because it is regulated by the government doesn’t mean it’s not a right?
If you have to ask permission, it is not a right; and certainly not an inalienable one.
I’m with #55, Pabut (somebody else referred to #55, but it obviously isn’t Pabut’s post, I guess renumbering happens).
Once you get out of the bedroom (and the govt has no business there, as PE Trudeau said), the govt can then decide what sort of property rules and tax rules it wants for live-together relationships based upon affection, including parent-offspring and non-traditional groupings.
# 134 Mister Mustard said, “So. No social security, no filing of Federal tax returns,”
I said what the State controls.
Also, if you look at it, civil unions don’t trigger Fed marriage penalty on the tax bracket.
That’s why all the gay couples I know here (the intelligent ones) go for civil union and wouldn’t touch marriage with a 10′ pole…
LOL
#128 – Mustard, while you appear to consider yourself smarter than everyone who disagrees with you, even though you are incapable of spelling my name correctly, it seems you only read what you want to hear.
As I said, the vast majority of the population is IN FAVOR of basic civil liberties, the issue comes down to having the gay rights lobby force their choice of language on the population.
Regarding percentages, 97%-99% refers to the percentage of straight people in the population.
Your constant invocation of the Westboro Baptist Church just undermines your whole argument because you probably can
‘t find more than a few dozen people who agree with their whacked out agenda.
Marriage vs Civil Unions w/Mustard’s #108 post
We had to repeal the “separate but equal” laws because in reality there turns out to be no such think as separate but equal. Was it Kierkegaard “Once you label me you negate me”
# 129 creamcitian said, “1st amendment and freedom of assembly – example: most municipalities limit this right and require papers and set limits.”
Umm, no they don’t It’s only required if you want do something that gets in the way of other citizens using the same space. I can meet with my friends in a park or at home without ANY permission ANYWHERE in the US.
# 139 why can’t we all just get along? said, “We had to repeal the “separate but equal””
This has nothing to do with “separate but equal”.
If you are a gay man and want to marry a lesbian you can. Same “rights” that I have. As a straight man & can’t marry another straight man, or a gay one. But, I can marry a lesbian…
No discrimination.
#138 – Jeff
>>incapable of spelling my name
Oh, I’m capable. I just prefer to spell it like it sounds.
>>Regarding percentages, 97%-99% refers to the
>>percentage of straight people in the
>>population.
Oh, so now gay people aren’t even part of “the population”? What you said was “It is just that the 97%-99% of the population does not want to be told by the other group how they will use the language.“.
I can’t believe so many people are so het up about what other people CALL what they’re doing.
Sheesh. Get a life.
“Marriage was intended for a man and a a woman.” By whom? Same sex marriage will eventually be legal. It’s just a matter of when.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”
– seems pretty clear to me.
Step 1: Start a religion.
Step 2: Get married to anyone you like in your own church.
Step 3: If the state refuses to recognize the marriage, direct their attention to the 1st amendment.
#136 – “If you have to ask permission, it is not a right; and certainly not an inalienable one.”
just because the government screws up on rights doesn’t mean it’s not a right. see also: separate but equal and women’s right to vote.
# 141 – you just admitted it is required in certain circumstances. and anywhere? even many public lands require things like permits to use. and there’s still gun permits.
just because you don’t like it don’t think it should be doesn’t mean it should be outlawed. this is america: civil liberties should absolutely NOT be voted on democratically. civil rights are inalienable. marriage is a civil right.
#142 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>If you are a gay man and want to marry a
>>lesbian you can. Same “rights” that I have. As
>>a straight man & can’t marry another straight
>>man, or a gay one. But, I can marry a lesbian…
Of all your asinine arguments, Paddy-RAMBO, this has to be the most asinine of all.
Why does it bother you so much if men “marry” men, or women “marry” women? Do you really have that rigid of a broomstick up your ass regarding current dictionary definitions?
#129 – Jeff
>>Your constant invocation of the Westboro
>>Baptist Church just undermines your whole
>>argument because you probably can‘t find
>>more than a few dozen people who agree with
>>their whacked out agenda.
I didn’t say they bought the entire whacked-out agenda. I said that the same irrational, groundless distaste for allowing other people the liberty to do as they please that motivates GodHatesFags dot org also motivates those who are in such a huff about calling a man-man or woman-woman union a “marriage”.
None of their other “arguments” make any sense at all.
#138 – Mustard said, “Oh, I’m capable. I just prefer to spell it like it sounds.”
Ah, no. If it was good enough for Chaucer, for whom I’m named, it should be good enough for you, and the rest of the UK who are educated enough to know.
Actually, it is another demonstration of the lack of respect you have for all those who do not mirror your beliefs.
“Oh, so now gay people aren’t even part of “the population”?”
Please see remedial grammar. Regarding a percentage of a population which is one part clearly implies that the remain percentage is still part of the population.
I have a life. I would suggest you get respect, tolerance, and an open mind. Doesn’t seem likely, but those who believe can pray for you. 😉
The term “marriage” should be removed from law — it is historically a religious concept and separation of church and state should keep the concept of marriage firmly planted in the realm of religion.
Civil union should be recognized as a legal concept of two (or more?) consenting adults entering into a binding contract.
#142
Sorry paddy I thought my post was clear to any one who could read but my dyslexia must be showing because to me your response sounds ludicrous.
I feel like you are playing
“is this the right room for an argument”
What is a same sex union of a man and a woman?
#151 – MikeN said, “What is a same sex union of a man and a woman?”
A non sequitur.
#148 – Chaucer
>>Doesn’t seem likely, but those who believe can
>>pray for you.
More likely that those of us who believe can pray that you and your fellow homophobes will become more accepting, more inclusive, less discriminatory, and allow other members of the “population” to enjoy the same basic civil liberties as you do.
just because the government screws up on rights doesn’t mean it’s not a right. see also: separate but equal and women’s right to vote.
You can’t get married without a license. Period. Ergo, the state controls your privilege.