Maine Senate Passes Marriage-Equality Bill

[mdk190]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!

[Quid]

w00t!

[captusa]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!

I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

[CaptainPike]

mdk190, when are you going to get married?

[LouC]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!

21 Yeas

14 Nays

In the Senate Vote Today, 18 Yeas required to pass.

1 Democrat voted Nay

2 Republicans voted Yea

LINK (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp?ID=280031932&chamber=Senate&serialnumber=54)

[gdoane]

I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

That's pretty easy to do.

As a single white male I am a member of the most put-upon tax group in the USA, and when a new group is allowed tax breaks it makes my tax burden all that much worse.

When the government grants tax breaks to the undeserving, the taxman isn't going to go back empty-handed. Nope! The taxman is going to lay the hurting on somebody else and in this case, that somebody else is ME and single Americans just like me.

[Quid]

That's pretty easy to do.

As a single white male I am a member of the most put-upon tax group in the USA, and when a new group is allowed tax breaks it makes my tax burden all that much worse.

When the government grants tax breaks to the undeserving, the taxman isn't going to go back empty-handed. Nope! The taxman is going to lay the hurting on somebody else and in this case, that somebody else is ME and single Americans just like me.


It won't affect you unless you live in a state that allows for gay marriage. The Feds still don't recognize it and thus the married couples must file their federal income taxes as single and are taxed as single just like you. So unless you are living in Mass., Iowa, or Conn. you are not paying a cent more than you were before.

[gdoane]

It won't affect you unless you live in a state that allows for gay marriage. The Feds still don't recognize it and thus the married couples must file their federal income taxes as single and are taxed as single just like you. So unless you are living in Mass., Iowa, or Conn. you are not paying a cent more than you were before.

These States don't exist in a vacuum! When their taxes go up, that can affect me no matter where I am.

Massachusetts: I like lobster. When taxes go up in Mass., my lobster prices go up.

Iowa: I like corn. When taxes go up in Iowa, my corn prices go up.

Connecticut: Okay, you got me there. There's nothing from Connecticut that I give a damn about from the State that gave the world Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman.

[Quid]

These States don't exist in a vacuum! When their taxes go up, that can affect me no matter where I am.

Massachusetts: I like lobster. When taxes go up in Mass., my lobster prices go up.

Iowa: I like corn. When taxes go up in Iowa, my corn prices go up.

Connecticut: Okay, you got me there. There's nothing from Connecticut that I give a damn about from the State that gave the world Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman.

True, but your original post only specified what YOU paid in taxes and not ancillary costs, so I addressed your tax issue. The price of foodstuffs from those states will fluctuate more based on availablity (especially lobsters) than any increase in taxes due to "them gays gettin' hitched"

[grapabeaux]

You all act as if homosexuals didn't have the right to marry before. All this bill does is enact something called "gay marriage", which is something different altogether.

[grapabeaux]

I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

1. Lack of sexual monogamy.

2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.

You can bring out this trite talking point a miilion times, and a milion times it will be refuted. Nothing has changed.

[Broseph]

2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.

Wow is this ridiculous.

[Broseph]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!

The gays are coming!! Oogety boogety!!

[Rorus Raz]

1. Lack of sexual monogamy.Which is...why they're undergoing a contract to bind themselves into a monogamous relationship. You couldn't make less sense if you said that wearing an octopus.
2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.Besides asking what is a "healthy sexual identity", are you going to start railing against single moms? Have single dads get married within X time before their kids go into foster care?

Absurd.

[grapabeaux]

Which is...why they're undergoing a contract to bind themselves into a monogamous relationship. You couldn't make less sense if you said that wearing an octopus.
Besides asking what is a "healthy sexual identity", are you going to start railing against single moms? Have single dads get married within X time before their kids go into foster care?

They aren't binding themselves to a sexually monogamous relationship. Even if it involves one emotional commitment, very few homosexual relationships involve only one sex partner.

Absurd.

I'll take your lack of substance on this to affirm my statement (which is backed by the social science, BTW).

[JStasc08]

1. Lack of sexual monogamy.

I have a heterosexual buddy who isn't sexually monogamous. This doesn't harm me in anyway so I can't imagine how his lack of sexual monogamy could harm anybody other than those involved.

2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.

There isn't any proof of this. I've actually seen a report where 36 of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents displayed childhood toy, game, clothing, and peer group preferences typical of their gender. All of the older children in the group who reported erotic fantasies or sexual behaviors were heterosexual.

[CID_0687]

Like I've said 1000 times before, and I'll say it another 1000 times.

This may be a civil union, it may be a contract between two parties, but it is in no way a marriage.

I don't think it is the state, or the federal gubmint's place to decide what is and what isn't a marriage.

Marriage has always been a religious ceremony. In recent years some churches have regarded homosexual relationships as marriage, this goes against the Bible, but hey, if they want to call it a marriage then more power to them.

As far as any one state is concerned it should be called a civil union or whatever else...the same goes for heterosexual couples that are wed by a judge.

[Z_only1]

Wow another homosexual thread.

What's the ratio of relevant to irrelevant thread topics with regards to homosexuality?

[Quid]

They aren't binding themselves to a sexually monogamous relationship. Even if it involves one emotional commitment, very few homosexual relationships involve only one sex partner.


And how would you know? Please don't say "a survey" or "one of my best friends is gay"

[captusa]

1. Lack of sexual monogamy.

2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.

You can bring out this trite talking point a miilion times, and a milion times it will be refuted. Nothing has changed.

Originally Posted by captusa
I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

[captusa]

I have a heterosexual buddy who isn't sexually monogamous. This doesn't harm me in anyway so I can't imagine how his lack of sexual monogamy could harm anybody other than those involved.
.......

You've just proven grapabeaux's point.
Your heterosexual friend's promiscuous behavior has done you no harm while you ignore the catastrophic effect of the licensing of monogomous homosexual relationships has had on grapabeaux.

[Chuangtzu]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!

That pretty much leaves Rhode Island, in New England, right?

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!

Excellent.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Originally Posted by captusa
I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

(credit to WW)

[CID_0687]

And how would you know? Please don't say "a survey" or "one of my best friends is gay"
How about, my best gay friend did a survey?

No?

[theant]

I think it is great!

Maybe some of those types will move from the places where we do not like it to those places that do. One would expect California to be first.

Anyway, I am glad a place will be comfortable for those who approve of such things and a place for those who do not.

Our nation was intended to allow states and localities to make such decisions based on local culture and desires... freedom. People should be free to shape their localities the way they want.

To impose one way or another on all states is wrong, imo.

[AeroEngineer]

That's pretty easy to do.

As a single white male I am a member of the most put-upon tax group in the USA, and when a new group is allowed tax breaks it makes my tax burden all that much worse.

When the government grants tax breaks to the undeserving, the taxman isn't going to go back empty-handed. Nope! The taxman is going to lay the hurting on somebody else and in this case, that somebody else is ME and single Americans just like me.

Using that logic, anyone getting married increases your tax burden...

[grapabeaux]

And how would you know? Please don't say "a survey" or "one of my best friends is gay"

Surveys have shown that even homosexual couples who share an emotional bond allow for outside sexual encounters.

I'm sorry that the facts make you uncomfortable, but they are nonetheless, facts.

[captusa]

That's pretty easy to do.

As a single white male I am a member of the most put-upon tax group in the USA, and when a new group is allowed tax breaks it makes my tax burden all that much worse.

When the government grants tax breaks to the undeserving, the taxman isn't going to go back empty-handed. Nope! The taxman is going to lay the hurting on somebody else and in this case, that somebody else is ME and single Americans just like me.

Check the tax charts.
A married couple with 2 relatively equal incomes pays a great deal more income taxes than unmarried couples including posslq's.
Elder heterosexual couples are not marrying because of the tax disadvantages of marriage.

[grapabeaux]

Originally Posted by captusa
I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk
Issue No.: 238
by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.
The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families.
However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments....

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

[captusa]

Like I've said 1000 times before, and I'll say it another 1000 times.

This may be a civil union, it may be a contract between two parties, but it is in no way a marriage.

I don't think it is the state, or the federal gubmint's place to decide what is and what isn't a marriage.

Marriage has always been a religious ceremony. In recent years some churches have regarded homosexual relationships as marriage, this goes against the Bible, but hey, if they want to call it a marriage then more power to them.

As far as any one state is concerned it should be called a civil union or whatever else...the same goes for heterosexual couples that are wed by a judge.

I am divorced.
I never had a religious marriage ceremony.
My ex is receiving 1/3 of my pension as a result of equitable distribution of marital assets (I'm not complaining).
Now tell me again that a marriage is and always has been a religious ceremony and convince the State of New York.

[CID_0687]

I am divorced.
I never had a religious marriage ceremony.
My ex is receiving 1/3 of my pension as a result of equitable distribution of marital assets (I'm not complaining).
Now tell me again that a marriage is and always has been a religious ceremony and convince the State of New York.
That's because you have/ had a legally binding contract...aka, a marriage license.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about...it shouldn't be called a marriage license, it only is, because that's what society has deemed it.

Look back in time, with or without a religious text...Marriage was a religious ceremony, or some sort of ceremony...you gave the FIL 6 goats and he gave you his daughter or whatever.

Only over the last 250 years has it become common that the law has anything to do with marriage...before that it was religious, or you just lived together.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php

His PhD is in religion.

And btw, you didn't answer his question.

[Celtic Pax]

As a resident "Mainer" I predict someone will get petitions together and start a "People's Petition" to repeal the law (if it ever becomes one. Maine has a long tradition of referendums to repeal laws that the legislature passes and I predict this one will face a referendum for repeal as well.

[TinCan]

I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

We have all been "harmed" because this movement to demand the right to force a new legal definition to the word "marriage" is nothing more than allowing yet another fringe, special interest group to "dictate" their beliefs onto the whole society. At first, society objected because such "unions" were deemed an abomination (a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc) against the foundations of societal norms and morals, an assault upon religion. Over time, society has come to accept homosexuality to a degree, including allowing "civil unions" that granted pretty much the same rights as heterosexual "civil unions." The line was/is drawn at using the term "marriage" for both types of "civil unions."

So yes, every time that the homosexual movement "triumphantly" announces another "marriage" victory, it harms us all. It is no longer about gaining "equal rights" under the law but just another "in your face" assault on the foundations of religion and personal values. It hits our pocketbooks because we have to pay for "sensitivity" programs and are being forced to "indoctrinate" our children at school so that they will willingly "accept" this fringe minority. Our legislators all across this land are expending an inordinate amount of our tax dollars enacting all sorts of legislation for and against this which takes away resources from other programs.

[smyrna]

Originally Posted by grapabeaux http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=53704131#post53704131)
2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.
Wow is this ridiculous.

On the scale of rediculous; this comment is
inversely proportional to two of the same sex trying create that same child.:whistle:

[smyrna]

Which is...why they're undergoing a contract to bind themselves into a monogamous relationship. You couldn't make less sense if you said that wearing an octopus.
Besides asking what is a "healthy sexual identity", are you going to start railing against single moms? Have single dads get married within X time before their kids go into foster care?

Absurd.

You twist the comment. The single parent is to be applauded for their efforts but not to deny that many of our social problems with our youth is because of this.

[smyrna]

I am divorced.
I never had a religious marriage ceremony.
My ex is receiving 1/3 of my pension as a result of equitable distribution of marital assets (I'm not complaining).
Now tell me again that a marriage is and always has been a religious ceremony and convince the State of New York.

What CID is referring to is that a "marriage" is a union that has been blessed by God. He takes two and makes one flesh. captusa, without that blessing, it is just a ceremony, whether in a church or otherwise.

[NascarGirl2448]

Originally Posted by captusa
I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

Good luck with that. I haven't been able to get an answer either. Somehow I think its just the fact that some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and refuse to acknowledge it.

[mtdim]

I am still waiting for someone who has been harmed by the fact that homosexuals are presently legally married to explain how they've been harmed.

Ed Helms and the Daily Show can educate you on this matter:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156320&title=Mass.-Hysteria

[Quid]

Surveys have shown that even homosexual couples who share an emotional bond allow for outside sexual encounters.

I'm sorry that the facts make you uncomfortable, but they are nonetheless, facts.

May I see a scientifically verifiable source? Until I see a source, your assertion above is tantamount to saying you were abducted by aliens.

[captusa]

That's because you have/ had a legally binding contract...aka, a marriage license.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about...it shouldn't be called a marriage license, it only is, because that's what society has deemed it.

Look back in time, with or without a religious text...Marriage was a religious ceremony, or some sort of ceremony...you gave the FIL 6 goats and he gave you his daughter or whatever.
Only over the last 250 years has it become common that the law has anything to do with marriage...before that it was religious, or you just lived together.my emphases

What you described as a religious ceremony is normally called a purchase.

I guess the only solution would be for all the religious communities to agree on a new word for the union of 2 people of different sexes by a religious ceremony so they won't be using a word that can be confused with the legal sanctioning and definitions that states and countries are using.

[captusa]

You should allow Ed Helms and the Daily Show can educate you on this matter:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156320&title=Mass.-Hysteria

Thank you for the information.
I will inform Foxy Loxy ASAP.*
Interesting that even with the increase in the number of married couples that Massachusetts is 49th in the number of divorces.
(Unless of course they were 50th before there were gay marriages)
*Is the literary reference still contemporary?

[captusa]

His PhD is in religion.

And btw, you didn't answer his question.

...... However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.
From the article.
Translation my opinion trumps your research and if I say theren is evidence then there is evidence.

[CID_0687]

What CID is referring to is that a "marriage" is a union that has been blessed by God. He takes two and makes one flesh. captusa, without that blessing, it is just a ceremony, whether in a church or otherwise.
Thank you Smyrna.

[CID_0687]

my emphases

What you described as a religious ceremony is normally called a purchase.

I guess the only solution would be for all the religious communities to agree on a new word for the union of 2 people of different sexes by a religious ceremony so they won't be using a word that can be confused with the legal sanctioning and definitions that states and countries are using.
:rolleyes:

[TinCan]

Good luck with that. I haven't been able to get an answer either. Somehow I think its just the fact that some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and refuse to acknowledge it.

Well, a better question would be on why there is an insistance to redefine the word "marriage" to accommodate the unions of homosexual couples? I have yet to hear one of these couples refer to themselves as husband and wife, let alone "spouse" as pretty much all merely use the term "partner" to define their proverbial other half.

Using the defense of "21st centrury" is just soo cliche'. It's right up there with BOOOOSH, Slick as in Willy, Obamanation, and others.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by grapabeaux
Surveys have shown that even homosexual couples who share an emotional bond allow for outside sexual encounters.

I'm sorry that the facts make you uncomfortable, but they are nonetheless, facts.



May I see a scientifically verifiable source? Until I see a source, your assertion above is tantamount to saying you were abducted by aliens.

I do not need a survey for me to believe that couples who share an emotional bond have been known to be or to have been promiscuous.
The genders are irrelevent.
It would take an enormous amount of verified research to convince me of the contrary.

[Quid]

I do not need a survey for me to believe that couples who share an emotional bond have been known to be or to have been promiscuous.
The genders are irrelevent.
It would take an enormous amount of verified research to convince me of the contrary.

Granted, infidelity knows no bounds of gender, BUT grapabeaux painted it as 100% of gay couples are promiscuous. I would like to see some proof of a 100% infidelity rate.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Granted, infidelity knows no bounds of gender, BUT grapabeaux painted it as 100% of gay couples are promiscuous. I would like to see some proof of a 100% infidelity rate.
But so what if it is? Unless he can prove that hetero marriages are 100% monogamous and never stray, his point is worthless.

As is any argument that homosexuality / same-sex marriage is wrong in the eyes of God. That is all very well and good for those who believe in that, but unless they can provide a compelling reason for the state to disallow it, they haven't a leg to stand on.

[gdoane]

But so what if it is? Unless he can prove that hetero marriages are 100% monogamous and never stray, his point is worthless.

As is any argument that homosexuality / same-sex marriage is wrong in the eyes of God. That is all very well and good for those who believe in that, but unless they can provide a compelling reason for the state to disallow it, they haven't a leg to stand on.


I think you have it backwards. There has to be a compelling reason for the state to allow it.

For example, the compelling reason for a state to allow a couple (a real couple, a man and a woman) to marry is that it builds a stable home which children may be born into and raised to become productive future citizens, a benefit to the state.

No such compelling reason exists for a state to license roommates to shack up. The relationship will not produce anything beneficial to the state and the state will gain nothing. In fact it will lose revenue due to lower taxes on married individuals and other benefits of marriage which makes it against the interests of the state to sanction such relationships.

[Getty Girl]

I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!


what fear and scare tactics?

[Getty Girl]

Good luck with that. I haven't been able to get an answer either. Somehow I think its just the fact that some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and refuse to acknowledge it.


I think people are worried about the social cost somewhere down the line like how children of same sex marriages are going to be paying a price. Its too soon to tell I guess...

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I think you have it backwards. There has to be a compelling reason for the state to allow it.

No I don't. The government must prove a compelling state interest to deny or impinge on our rights.

[Getty Girl]

i have heard much about the pro gay marriage advocates badmouthing those who don't agree with them, outing and boycotting companies who support traditional marriage and generally being nasty namecallers. perfect example is what happened to Miss California recently.


so can someone please tell me what scare and fear tactics were used by the right against pro gay marriage advocates?

[BillBrown]

Marriage - Equality?

WOW- Maine must have a very powerful government to make all marriages equal.

Where I live, some marriages are fine, some aren't very good.

Maybe I need to move to Maine, where they enforce "equal" marriages.

[WorldWatcher]

I think you have it backwards. There has to be a compelling reason for the state to allow it.


Actually not, when invidious laws are written to target a specific class of people and those people use their Constitutionally guaranteed right to address the grievence, the State can be required to provide a compelling interest.


For example, the compelling reason for a state to allow a couple (a real couple, a man and a woman) to marry is that it builds a stable home which children may be born into and raised to become productive future citizens, a benefit to the state.

Actually that does not qualify as a compelling reason as there is no requirement to have children, or even be able to conceive children, in order to enter into marriage. A woman who has a hysterectomy (and therefore unable to even conceive) allowed to marry even though there will never be any biological children from the marriage.

When comparing similar circumstances in examining compelling interest, the the logical method is to examine similar groups where one is allowed and one is not. In this case the more accurate comparison is between law abiding, tax paying, infertile different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, infertile same-sex couples.


No such compelling reason exists for a state to license roommates to shack up. The relationship will not produce anything beneficial to the state and the state will gain nothing. In fact it will lose revenue due to lower taxes on married individuals and other benefits of marriage which makes it against the interests of the state to sanction such relationships.


And yet given your "compelling interest" the government is ALREADY doing that by allowing those who do not desire children or are unable to conceive children to marry. Again using your logic, government already recognizes "roommates" that enter into marriage who do not (or cannot) have children as a benefit.

The burden is on the government to differentiate two different groups where one is being discriminated against.



The Iowa Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Varnum v. Brien.




>>>>

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

i have heard much about the pro gay marriage advocates badmouthing those who don't agree with them, outing and boycotting companies who support traditional marriage and generally being nasty namecallers. perfect example is what happened to Miss California recently.


so can someone please tell me what scare and fear tactics were used by the right against pro gay marriage advocates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

Well that was easy...

[Getty Girl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

Well that was easy...


again where are the scare and fear tactics?
where is the name calling the boycotting the outing of companies who support gay marriage...?

[gdoane]

No I don't. The government must prove a compelling state interest to deny or impinge on our rights.

There's no right to marry. The state will deny marriage on the basis of relation (no incest allowed) to different sex couples as well.

[captusa]

I think you have it backwards. There has to be a compelling reason for the state to allow it.

For example, the compelling reason for a state to allow a couple (a real couple, a man and a woman) to marry is that it builds a stable home which children may be born into and raised to become productive future citizens, a benefit to the state.

No such compelling reason exists for a state to license roommates to shack up. The relationship will not produce anything beneficial to the state and the state will gain nothing. In fact it will lose revenue due to lower taxes on married individuals and other benefits of marriage which makes it against the interests of the state to sanction such relationships.
There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that requires a compelling reason to grant equal rights to an identifiable group.
The Supreme Court was in extreme error when it upheld miscegenation laws.
A precident fortunately reversed like the Dred Scott case.
It is you that have it backwards.
There is a compelling reason for not granting marriage licenses to close relatives of different sexes. (The compelling reason would not be the case for same sex couples.)
The old arguement about providing a stable home which children may be born into and raised to become productive future citizens, a benefit to the state would only be relevent if married couples were required to have and raise children and revoking the license if they were childless.

You keep bringing up the incorrect reasons of losing taxes if same sex marriages were allowed.
The fact is there is a marriage tax built into the tax code were a married couple with 2 incomes pay a substantially more than posslq's.
One posslq can take a standard deduction on their income while the other could take all the deductions like mortgage interest and property taxes etc.

[gdoane]

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that requires a compelling reason to grant equal rights to an identifiable group.

Marriage is NOT NOT NOT a right. Anything requiring a LICENSE is not a right. There's NO RIGHT TO MARRY.


The Supreme Court was in extreme error when it upheld miscegenation laws.
A precident fortunately reversed like the Dred Scott case.
It is you that have it backwards.


You're the one making up rights as you go.

There is a compelling reason for not granting marriage licenses to close relatives of different sexes. (The compelling reason would not be the case for same sex couples.)

Actually, the compelling reason for denying close relatives is genetic incompatibility, and gay couples are ALSO genetically incompatible so the reasoning is the exact same.

The old arguement about providing a stable home which children may be born into and raised to become productive future citizens, a benefit to the state would only be relevent if married couples were required to have and raise children and revoking the license if they were childless.

That's not true either, as a stable home of different sex couples can (and often do) act as safety nets for the children of relatives as well. My father was raised by his Aunt and her Husband, for example in a stable home after he was orphaned by WWII combat.

You keep bringing up the incorrect reasons of losing taxes if same sex marriages were allowed.
The fact is there is a marriage tax built into the tax code were a married couple with 2 incomes pay a substantially more than posslq's.
One posslq can take a standard deduction on their income while the other could take all the deductions like mortgage interest and property taxes etc.

All you need to do to see how that's false is take a quick peek at the tax tables and compare the "Single" column to all the lower rate columns.

[captusa]

All you need to do to see how that's false is take a quick peek at the tax tables and compare the "Single" column to all the lower rate columns.

The single column refers to ONE income.
If both of the those using the married column have incomes their taxes would be far greater than if they were single and even greater if one took a standard deduction while the other itemized.
Something forbidden to married couples filling seperately.
Ronald Regan eliminated a small amount of relief from the "marriage tax" when he introduced "tax simplification" or as it was known among "The Accountants Full Employment Act"


I did the math. Using the 2007 rates.
Without taking advantage of the possibilty of beneficially dividing the deductions if 2 single people (posslq's) with 2 taxable incomes of $77,100 would pay 2 X $15,698.75 or 31397.50.
The same 2 people if they were a married couple filing jointly would pay $32168.
The taxable amount would be much less if one of the parties took a standard deduction while the other took off the usual mortgage interest, property taxes, charitable deductions etc.

[WorldWatcher]

[/COLOR]

Marriage is NOT NOT NOT a right. Anything requiring a LICENSE is not a right. There's NO RIGHT TO MARRY.




Gene, you are 100% correct. There is no right to marry. I agee.


However, there is a right to equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States as shown that it exists in the Federal Constitution and similar language exists in many State Constitutions.


Lets use a recent case an an example, in Varnum v. Brieg the Iowa Supreme Court ruling was based on this section of their constitution...


[COLOR="Yellow"]Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.


Now since law abiding, tax paying, infertal different-sex couples are allowed to marry they are the basis for the section of comparison having to do with those "upon the same terms" as noted in their constitution.



According to the Iowa Constitution, Equal Treatment under the Law is a right enjoyed by all citizens of the state. How do I know this? Because it appears under Article I of their Constitution labeled - you guessed it - "Bill of Rights".



>>>>

[gdoane]

Gene, you are 100% correct. There is no right to marry. I agee.


However, there is a right to equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States as shown that it exists in the Federal Constitution and similar language exists in many State Constitutions.


Lets use a recent case an an example, in Varnum v. Brieg the Iowa Supreme Court ruling was based on this section of their constitution...

Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Now since law abiding, tax paying, infertal different-sex couples are allowed to marry they are the basis for the section of comparison having to do with those "upon the same terms" as noted in their constitution.



According to the Iowa Constitution, Equal Treatment under the Law is a right enjoyed by all citizens of the state. How do I know this? Because it appears under Article I of their Constitution labeled - you guessed it - "Bill of Rights".



>>>>

Denying gay marriage IS equal treatment because same-sex marriages are denied to straights and gays, males and females alike. You can't ask for a fairer law than that.

[WorldWatcher]

Denying gay marriage IS equal treatment because same-sex marriages are denied to straights and gays, males and females alike. You can't ask for a fairer law than that.


Fair like in Loving v. Virginia?


Coloreds and Whites were treated just the same, can't ask for a more fair law then that right?



Oops - the law was found to not be fair and it was struck down. Just like it was in Varnum v. Brien.



>>>>

[gdoane]

Fair like in Loving v. Virginia?


Coloreds and Whites were treated just the same, can't ask for a more fair law then that right?



Oops - the law was found to not be fair and it was struck down. Just like it was in Varnum v. Brien.



>>>>


The 1967 case doesn't address the genetic incompatibilities between close relatives and same-sex marriages. The genetic compatibility is as simple as XX and XY chromosomes. XX and XX are incompatible and XY and XY are incompatible genetically. That's not law, that's science and no silly liberal is going to change that through the courts or through any amount of legislation.

This is not a case of civil rights, it's a simple case of nature and how mammals procreate in laws that predate the Constitution by many thousands of years.

Obviously blacks and whites are genetically compatible. Our current President is living proof of that, but would Obama exist if his two mommies were white and black? NOPE! There are some laws beyond even the Supreme Court's power to overrule.

[WorldWatcher]

The 1967 case doesn't address the genetic incompatibilities between close relatives and same-sex marriages. The genetic compatibility is as simple as XX and XY chromosomes. XX and XX are incompatible and XY and XY are incompatible genetically. That's not law, that's science and no silly liberal is going to change that through the courts or through any amount of legislation.


No, the 1967 case addressed the same argument you made. That if an invidious law is applied to both parties equally it is not discriminatory.


Since heterosexuals and homosexuals were denied the ability to marry anyone of the same gender - the law was not discriminatory.

The same case was made by the state in Loving v. Virginia, i.e. if whites can't marry coloreds and coloreds can't marry whites, then the law is not discriminatory.


This is not a case of civil rights, it's a simple case of nature and how mammals procreate in laws that predate the Constitution by many thousands of years.

Obviously blacks and whites are genetically compatible. Our current President is living proof of that, but would Obama exist if his two mommies were white and black? NOPE! There are some laws beyond even the Supreme Court's power to overrule.


That would be a good point except that in no state in the union is procreation a requirement for Civil Marriage.


Feel free to prove me wrong by showing us the law from any state in the union that requires procreation as a requirement for marriage.


Failure to produce such a law will of course invalidates the idea that procreation is a necessity for marriage as couples that CAN'T procreate as just as able to marry as those that CAN procreate.


>>>>

[gdoane]

No, the 1967 case addressed the same argument you made. That if an invidious law is applied to both parties equally it is not discriminatory.

Discrimination doesn't even enter into the equation because while being male or female, black or white, short or tall and such are states of being, whom you sleep with and whom you marry are CHOICES.

If you say that a person can't choose whom they wish to have sex with, then you step onto the slippery slope where pedophiles can claim they can't help wanting to have sex with babies and they shouldn't be prosecuted for acting upon their uncontrollable "natural" desires. To prosecute them would be a violation of their so-called "civil" rights even though their behavior is far from civil.

Judging a person by a condition of birth is wrong, but judging a person by decisions and choices they make is fair game.

Since heterosexuals and homosexuals were denied the ability to marry anyone of the same gender - the law was not discriminatory.

That's not the argument here. The argument is that the marriage is denied based upon the fact of genetic incompatibility between male and male, female and female and heterosexual couples too closely related.

The same case was made by the state in Loving v. Virginia, i.e. if whites can't marry coloreds and coloreds can't marry whites, then the law is not discriminatory.

Racism is discriminatory. Judging a person by the decisions they make concerning sexual relationships isn't discriminatory at all. You can be straight and solicit prostitution and there are laws against that as well because sexual relationships are a choice. It's not involuntary like race or sex or eye color.

That would be a good point except that in no state in the union is procreation a requirement for Civil Marriage.

Genetic compatibility is, though.

[NascarGirl2448]

Well, a better question would be on why there is an insistance to redefine the word "marriage" to accommodate the unions of homosexual couples? I have yet to hear one of these couples refer to themselves as husband and wife, let alone "spouse" as pretty much all merely use the term "partner" to define their proverbial other half.

Using the defense of "21st centrury" is just soo cliche'. It's right up there with BOOOOSH, Slick as in Willy, Obamanation, and others.

There's a very good reason to supposedly redefine a word that has already been redefined several times throughout history. Its the simple fact that this so-called "separate but equal" crap is UNconstitutional. But then again, 10 years from now, people won't give a flip over a gay couple being given the same rights and privileges as we straight people already enjoy.

[WorldWatcher]

Discrimination doesn't even enter into the equation because while being male or female, black or white, short or tall and such are states of being, whom you sleep with and whom you marry are CHOICES.

If you say that a person can't choose whom they wish to have sex with, then you step onto the slippery slope where pedophiles can claim they can't help wanting to have sex with babies and they shouldn't be prosecuted for acting upon their uncontrollable "natural" desires. To prosecute them would be a violation of their so-called "civil" rights even though their behavior is far from civil.

Judging a person by a condition of birth is wrong, but judging a person by decisions and choices they make is fair game.


Good thing we’re not talking about “who you sleep with” we’re talking about government discrimination in the case of Civil Marriage.


That's not the argument here. The argument is that the marriage is denied based upon the fact of genetic incompatibility between male and male, female and female and heterosexual couples too closely related.

Oh ******** Gene, that one of the most outlandish attempts to justify discrimination for law abiding, tax paying, citizens I’ve heard.

Here is the link to the Iowa Case Decision -->> http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499.pdf
Here is the link to the California Decision -->> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Back-up your spurious claim that it’s about genetics and point out in either case where the government attempted to make a case that sperm+sperm (from a male/male couple) or egg+egg (from a female/female couple) would cause birth defects.


Genetic compatibility is, though.


Ya go ahead, show us some cases about same-sex marriage and discrimination where the government argued that it had a compelling state interest in creating invidious laws that discriminated against same-sex couples because of the children that would be genetically created from such a union.

:)) :))


On top of that heterosexual couples are not required to undergo genetic screening for known and testable defects. So again your argument fails, first because it is rediculus to assume genetics are an issue in a male/male or female/female couple and second because the same (fictitious) standard is not applied to different-sex couple – again highlighting and attempt at discriminatory treatment.


Be careful, don’t throw your back out trying to stretch for that one.


>>>>

[Pudge]

That's pretty easy to do.

As a single white male I am a member of the most put-upon tax group in the USA, and when a new group is allowed tax breaks it makes my tax burden all that much worse.

When the government grants tax breaks to the undeserving, the taxman isn't going to go back empty-handed. Nope! The taxman is going to lay the hurting on somebody else and in this case, that somebody else is ME and single Americans just like me.

So get married.

Actually, that won't help, because couples who are married who file jointly pay more in taxes if they don't have children.

Plus, your federal taxes won't change because as of now, the fedgov doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. There is a lawsuit pending on that part of DOMA, though.

I still don't think your taxes will go up unless the gay & lesbian couples start raising lots of children and eating up those per-child tax credits.

[Pudge]

These States don't exist in a vacuum! When their taxes go up, that can affect me no matter where I am.

Massachusetts: I like lobster. When taxes go up in Mass., my lobster prices go up.

Oof. When Maine gets on board, you'll be even more deep in the cents-per-pound lobster price increase.

Iowa: I like corn. When taxes go up in Iowa, my corn prices go up.

You could always push for more corn subsidies.

Connecticut: Okay, you got me there. There's nothing from Connecticut that I give a damn about from the State that gave the world Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman.

Submarines. Electric Boat builds subs. Pratt & Whitney have a plant there too.

[Pudge]

1. Lack of sexual monogamy.

This is a reason to not allow same-sex marriage? I can't think of a better way to continue the lack of sexual monogamy than by disincentivising monogamous commitments.

2. Poor parental enviroment for children - lack of one gender parental figure hinders the development of children into a healthy sexual identity.

The evidence does not show this at all. Besides, not all gay or lesbian couples will raise kids.

[Pudge]

Surveys have shown that even homosexual couples who share an emotional bond allow for outside sexual encounters.

I'm sorry that the facts make you uncomfortable, but they are nonetheless, facts.

What surveys? How many people were questioned? Where was the survey conducted?

If you survey in a place where sexual attitudes are more libertine in general, say, New York City or San Francisco, you'll get more gay men saying that they're in open relationships, but it's not even close to representative of all of us, and besides-

There is no requirement that a married couple now practice sexual fidelity. Not a one. And I am not talking adultery where one spouse cheats on another, I am talking about heterosexual married couples who have open relationships, or who are swingers.

[gdoane]

Oof. When Maine gets on board, you'll be even more deep in the cents-per-pound lobster price increase.

Who'd have thunk Red Lobster meant going into the Red for dinner?

You could always push for more corn subsidies.

I pay taxes. Subsidies don't save me any money.

Submarines. Electric Boat builds subs. Pratt & Whitney have a plant there too.

I live in ARIZONA. Do you know how many Submarines there are in Arizona? Running silent and deep just ain't happening in Roosevelt Lake. Jet Skis are overkill for all the water we have. Connecticut probably would be the builder of all the Submarines in Arizona... if there were one.

[gdoane]

So get married.

Been there, done that, wound up with a psycho who joined the Sierra Club, tried to poison me with Tofu and became a vegetarian. She got a cat she named "Skittles" and I told her a cat named after a snack should be named "Taco".

She was cool when I married her, ate pepperoni pizza and liked Eagles music and then she started to turn into Libzilla.

I can't join the Sierra Club and listen to Kenny G music for extended periods of time. I can't eat tofu and pretend that I love cats. Such changes in my personality would require more than a lobotomy, that would take a complete brain transplant.

So, I filed for divorce. No man with a valid hunting license should be eating tofu. That's just wrong.


Actually, that won't help, because couples who are married who file jointly pay more in taxes if they don't have children.

Not in my case because my ex-wife couldn't hold a job for more than a month. She never made more than $800 per year so the standard deduction was always well over what her tax liabilities were (none) and enough to deduct from mine.

The reality is men and women don't usually make equal money in a relationship. Traditionally, there's a breadwinner and a homemaker. That remains true today.

The median household income in the USA today is $50,740 per year. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

That's one good breadwinner class job, and not a two-income class home unless one of the jobs seriously sucks.

Marriage brings a couple of different economies together. Not all wealth is money. My father was a career Motorola man (I fix Motorola junk all the time myself) and my mother was more of an artist, decorating cakes and teaching crafts which doesn't pay much but she enjoys it.

Homemaking is a real job. It doesn't pay anything but there's little or no argument to be had that a stable and well-kept home is worth something to the fabric of America as basic as the cliche' of "Mom and Apple Pie".

Betsy Ross made the Flag. George Washington carried it into battle. Men and women are a team with different abilities which make a greater whole than the sum of their parts. That's what marriage, licensed marriage, recognizes.


Plus, your federal taxes won't change because as of now, the fedgov doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. There is a lawsuit pending on that part of DOMA, though.

Federal taxes are just one tiny aspect of the taxes we pay. The government goes to great pains to make taxation invisible. The closest thing you get to honesty is your telephone bill and you can probably count 10 taxes listed on it. My home telephone is taxed at a 130% rate, meaning for every $10 in charges there are $13 in taxes.

So people are ditching their home landlines in record numbers, not because of any income taxes but because of hidden taxes and once our government finds a way to pile on a hidden tax, the bandwagon is rolling and every legislator jumps right on board.

I still don't think your taxes will go up unless the gay & lesbian couples start raising lots of children and eating up those per-child tax credits.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that gay-marriage advocates want to gain the benefits of paying more money in taxes and insurance?

This movement is greedy, it's a money grab for family insurance benefits and for tax benefits so that rich gays can attract poor gays into their homes and beds.

This isn't about equality at all. I have the same deal as any gay man has right now. Gays want a better deal than I've got. I'm supposed to think that's fair. I ain't buying it.

[TinCan]

There's a very good reason to supposedly redefine a word that has already been redefined several times throughout history. Its the simple fact that this so-called "separate but equal" crap is UNconstitutional. But then again, 10 years from now, people won't give a flip over a gay couple being given the same rights and privileges as we straight people already enjoy.

How many years have we been hearing this argument? Face it, most people in this country have no problems with "civil unions" for homosexuals that grant them the same "rights & benefits" as heterosexuals but have drawn the line at calling them "marriages," right? The people have spoken through their votes. No, it is elements within the homosexual movement that are not content with it so, instead of accepting the "will of the people," they have chosen to usurp it by forcing their desires upon the masses through "judicial mandate." It has gone beyond merely desiring the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals to "forcing" unconditional acceptance of a lifestyle that many find abhorent. The intolerence is with the homosexual movement, not with the heterosexuals.

[who]

These States don't exist in a vacuum! When their taxes go up, that can affect me no matter where I am.

Massachusetts: I like lobster. When taxes go up in Mass., my lobster prices go up.

Iowa: I like corn. When taxes go up in Iowa, my corn prices go up.

Connecticut: Okay, you got me there. There's nothing from Connecticut that I give a damn about from the State that gave the world Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman.

Geeze. Now even the price of Lobster can be blamed on TeH Gays.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

again where are the scare and fear tactics?That ad is crammed full of ******** fear tactics.

where is the name calling the boycotting the outing of companies who support gay marriage...?http://www.afa.net/

Again. Easy.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Fair like in Loving v. Virginia?


SCOTUS did say in their decision that marriage is a 'right'.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Geeze. Now even the price of Lobster can be blamed on TeH Gays.

I knew it!!

Because of Teh Gays...

[Pudge]

Who'd have thunk Red Lobster meant going into the Red for dinner?

That's another thing. If you actually ate lobster while in New England you would never eat it anywhere else in the country, let alone the dryest state in the union.

I pay taxes. Subsidies don't save me any money.

They keep the price of corn low, though. Pay now or pay later. Either way, there is no way that same-sex marriage in Iowa is going to make your can of Del Monte corn jump in price. As it's been said, normal fluctuation in the cost of corn and other products will have a noticeable effect before marriage will.

I live in ARIZONA. Do you know how many Submarines there are in Arizona? Running silent and deep just ain't happening in Roosevelt Lake. Jet Skis are overkill for all the water we have. Connecticut probably would be the builder of all the Submarines in Arizona... if there were one.

Maybe, but the federal government spends money on submarines. It's not like there is a huge market for private subs.

[Pudge]

Gene, I don't have time to respond to your longer post, but man, I almost fell off my chair when you referred to your ex as 'Libzilla'.

And I do agree, no man- period, hunting license or not- should be eating tofu.

[TexasGreatGranny]

Good thing we’re not talking about “who you sleep with” we’re talking about government discrimination in the case of Civil Marriage.




Oh ******** Gene, that one of the most outlandish attempts to justify discrimination for law abiding, tax paying, citizens I’ve heard.

Here is the link to the Iowa Case Decision -->> http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499.pdf
Here is the link to the California Decision -->> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Back-up your spurious claim that it’s about genetics and point out in either case where the government attempted to make a case that sperm+sperm (from a male/male couple) or egg+egg (from a female/female couple) would cause birth defects.





Ya go ahead, show us some cases about same-sex marriage and discrimination where the government argued that it had a compelling state interest in creating invidious laws that discriminated against same-sex couples because of the children that would be genetically created from such a union.

:)) :))


On top of that heterosexual couples are not required to undergo genetic screening for known and testable defects. So again your argument fails, first because it is rediculus to assume genetics are an issue in a male/male or female/female couple and second because the same (fictitious) standard is not applied to different-sex couple – again highlighting and attempt at discriminatory treatment.


Be careful, don’t throw your back out trying to stretch for that one.


>>>>

Uhhhh...what am I missing here? Male to male sperm can not create a child last time I ask.... In texas there used to be a sodomy law, had nothing to do with bearing children, had to do with the bible, then someone figured out that what went on behind your own walls was between you and GOD and the government should butt out. They kept a version of the law but it pertains to women who are sodimized unwillingly.

[mdk190]

Uhhhh...what am I missing here? Male to male sperm can not create a child last time I ask.... In texas there used to be a sodomy law, had nothing to do with bearing children, had to do with the bible, then someone figured out that what went on behind your own walls was between you and GOD and the government should butt out. They kept a version of the law but it pertains to women who are sodimized unwillingly.

The government has no right to try and police the bedroom activities of consenting adults. It was a dumb law.

[gdoane]

That's another thing. If you actually ate lobster while in New England you would never eat it anywhere else in the country, let alone the dryest state in the union.

I'll stay here where we have genuine Mexican food served by illegal aliens.

Besides, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd have Ted Kennedy for a Senator and I don't think I could survive that.

They keep the price of corn low, though. Pay now or pay later. Either way, there is no way that same-sex marriage in Iowa is going to make your can of Del Monte corn jump in price. As it's been said, normal fluctuation in the cost of corn and other products will have a noticeable effect before marriage will.

What happens in other States affects all States. Arizona is the last State you can blame Obama on, we tried to run John McCain after all.

Maybe, but the federal government spends money on submarines. It's not like there is a huge market for private subs.

There's not a huge defense need for submarines either. The current major challenge for the US Navy is Somali Pirates and what is a submarine going to do about a highjacked oil tanker?

Subs are just incompatible with most modern Navy missions. They're great if you're willing to destroy an enemy ship or launch a nuke against an enemy nation, but neither one of those have happened in about sixty years now.

[WorldWatcher]

Uhhhh...what am I missing here? Male to male sperm can not create a child last time I ask....


Go back and read Gene's posts (gdoane) as he was trying to say that the reason there are Civil Marriage laws are to keep males from breading with males.


Didn't make any sense to me either.



In texas there used to be a sodomy law, had nothing to do with bearing children, had to do with the bible, then someone figured out that what went on behind your own walls was between you and GOD and the government should butt out. They kept a version of the law but it pertains to women who are sodimized unwillingly.


Yes, that "someone" was the United States Supreme Court when they struck down the Texas law and governments invading the bedrooms of citizens in Lawrence v. Texas.



>>>>

[Haplo]

That's pretty easy to do.

As a single white male I am a member of the most put-upon tax group in the USA, and when a new group is allowed tax breaks it makes my tax burden all that much worse. Yea to hell with equality! Personal finances are more important then silly constitutional ideas like that...right?

When the government grants tax breaks to the undeserving...Undeserving?! That's rather sickening to hear G. Who are you to decide what groups of American citizens are deserving of this? :mad:

**** it...this is the same type of anti-freedom ******** that got me fed up to the point that I had to take a break from the board once. Looks like it's time to make it permanent. Congratz...

[gdoane]

Go back and read Gene's posts (gdoane) as he was trying to say that the reason there are Civil Marriage laws are to keep males from breading with males.


Didn't make any sense to me either.

That's not what I said. I said there are laws to keep couples who are biologically incompatible from marrying. No marrying close relatives. It's a rule. If gays are allowed to marry and they're patently biologically incompatible then there's no justification for a law keeping brothers from marrying sisters or daughters marrying fathers.

When marriage stops being ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN from different families and different genders then marriage becomes a free-for-all. Bigamy, interspecies marriage, the gloves are off and anything goes at that point.

Every time you give somebody an inch somebody else is going to want to take a mile.

That's why you never give anybody an inch.


Yes, that "someone" was the United States Supreme Court when they struck down the Texas law and governments invading the bedrooms of citizens in Lawrence v. Texas.


Hopefully Souter's replacement won't be the kind of flaming liberal who makes dumb decisions like that one.

[Lima India Bravo]

I knew it!!

Because of Teh Gays...

SHHHHHHH!!!!! :shhh::shhh::shhh: Let the uber-cons boycott lobster because lobster fishing supports gay marriage. That way the law of supply and demand will drive down the cost of lobster, and teh gheys (me included) can afford to serve more of it at our fabulous, fabulous Sunday brunches. :)

EDIT: And, don't tell anyone, but it's an item on The Gay Agenda:

"45.2/b Drive down the price of lobster...."

[mtdim]

SHHHHHHH!!!!! :shhh::shhh::shhh: Let the uber-cons boycott lobster because lobster fishing supports gay marriage. That way the law of supply and demand will drive down the cost of lobster, and teh gheys (me included) can afford to serve more of it at our fabulous, fabulous Sunday brunches. :)

EDIT: And, don't tell anyone, but it's an item on The Gay Agenda:

"45.2/b Drive down the price of lobster...."

:))

I'm heading up to Maine in July for a vacation, so I greatly appreciate all of your efforts to get the price of lobster down. :lol:

[CaptC]

Today another set back for the social and political dinosaurs of great nation. Maine is gearing up to be the next state to allow its homosexual citizens marry. I applaud the people of Maine for following the path of equality and ignoring all of fear and scare tactics that have been employed by the right. Well done!
YOU AND MAINE HAVE GOT TO BE NUTS!!!! Homosexual marriage is an AFFRONT to NORMAL people and homosexual activity is an ABOMINATION before GOD!

Personally I prefer to be NORMAL and know that I WILL be going to live with GOD when I die!

[WorldWatcher]

That's not what I said. I said there are laws to keep couples who are biologically incompatible from marrying.


Actually you said…

The 1967 case doesn't address the genetic incompatibilities between close relatives and same-sex marriages. The genetic compatibility is as simple as XX and XY chromosomes. XX and XX are incompatible and XY and XY are incompatible genetically. That's not law, that's science and no silly liberal is going to change that through the courts or through any amount of legislation.


XY Chromosomes (or heterogametic sex) identify males.

XX Chromosomes (or homogametic sex) identify females.


So in saying the XX (female) are incompatible with XX (female) and XY (male) are incompatible with XY (male) you really did say that Civil Marriage laws exist to keep incompatible males from getting pregnant from another male (and vice versa with females)

When you say “incompatible genetically” then the only reason the two sets of chromosomes would matter is production of off-spring.

>>>>

[CaptC]

You all act as if homosexuals didn't have the right to marry before. All this bill does is enact something called "gay marriage", which is something different altogether.
THEY DIDN'T! Not Legally or Clerically!

[captusa]

YOU AND MAINE HAVE GOT TO BE NUTS!!!! Homosexual marriage is an AFFRONT to NORMAL people and homosexual activity is an ABOMINATION before GOD!

Personally I prefer to be NORMAL and know that I WILL be going to live with GOD when I die!

Your being affronted by the behavoir of others is no reason those whose actions affront you be limited.
One assumes that if God has been affronted HE can handle it.
Your opinion of God's viewpoint should not limit te rights of those who do not share your opinions.
And just think how less crowded Heaven will be WHEN you go to live with God without those darn homosexuals.

Other than being offended how has the fact that same sex marriages are legal in seveal state personally harmed you or any other "normal" people ?

[CaptC]

the government has no right to try and police the bedroom activities of consenting adults. It was a dumb law.


try telling that to the government!!

[CaptC]

Your being affronted by the behavoir of others is no reason those whose actions affront you be limited.
One assumes that if God has been affronted HE can handle it.
Your opinion of God's viewpoint should not limit te rights of those who do not share your opinions.
And just think how less crowded Heaven will be WHEN you go to live with God without those darn homosexuals.

Other than being offended how has the fact that same sex marriages are legal in seveal state personally harmed you or any other "normal" people ?
It has harmed me by being an affront to my sensiblities and by having some "special interest" agenda shoved down my throat.

[Mobulis]

It has harmed me by being an affront to my sensiblities and by having some "special interest" agenda shoved down my throat.

Guess what? You don't have the right to be non-affronted.

[captusa]

It has harmed me by being an affront to my sensiblities and by having some "special interest" agenda shoved down my throat.

How has being offended (affronted) been harmful to you and have you swallowed anything that has been shoved down your throat ?
If you haven't swallowed then there is no evidence that anything has been shoved down your throat.
Stupidity is an affront to my sensibilities (often my own) but if we don't have the freedom to be stupid then what freedom do we have.
You have the freedom to select the "right" gender for your mate(s) while others have the right to make the "wrong" choice for the gender of their mate(s).
You have the right to be offended and to voice your offense but the Constitution does not protect you from being offended.
Homosexuals have a right to be affronted by your bigotted viewpoint but they are not protected from being affronted by your viewpoint or your voicing of that viewpoint.