1

I wonder what Romans were arguing about in the mid 5th century. Or what was on the front page of the Paris newspaper in 1815. Couldn't have been as important as this.

Sometimes it disturbs me to realize how strong the suicidal tendencies of my fellow countrymen must be.

2 That is a threat: obey us or face the consequences. How on earth can anyone honestly construe that otherwise?

Let's just put it this way: normal people are sick of having a handful of black robed lawyers bypass their will.

3 Remember when I wrote this in Federalist No. 78?

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Boy, did I get that wrong. Sorry about that.

4 poop!

5

Dear Judiciary,

Legislatures are NOT just a novelty we use for dumping tax dollars. They are--for good or for ill--the means by which we re-assure ourselves that we have a voice in government. Take away the legislative venue for resolving public debates and you take away our self-governance. We obey laws but we have no motive for obeying dictates by the unelected. You may think you're asserting justice but all you're doing is inciting anarchy.

6 Fucking hicks. When will they learn that the government overrules their conscience?

7 Next on the Gay Agenda.  Have state courts MANDATE that everyone will ACCEPT gay marriage under penalty of law.  Hmmmmm....might have problems with that one.  Maybe institute Thought Police.

8 My sense of accomplishment is so out of whack that I think a B.S. in accounting makes me smart.

9 My kids? Corn nibbling retards, just like me.

10 And the judges have ruled. It's over. And the bigots lost. Get over it.

Obama? Is that you? I know you don't have better things to do, but could you fuck off?

11 dishonest cloud,

Could you point to me the exact phrase in the Iowa Constitution that allows for gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter? Or are you just making shit up out of whole cloth like the black robed gods who think they have the authority to dictate to society what their morals must be?

Yeah, that is what I thought.

12 And the judges have ruled. It's over.

That's what I tried to tell them but they wouldn't listen.

13 How do bi people, bi since birth as the result of genetics, marry both a male and female in Iowa, and elsewhere? I'm frustrated as hell over this, and wonder when the fuck someone is going to pay attention to my civil rights.  I'm tired of gays getting all the rights.

14
And the judges have ruled. It's over. And the bigots lost. Get over it...


In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

15 Oh goodie,,, I'm off to get a marriage license to wed my basset hound, a box of Ritz crackers, several trees, my bass boat, that lamp and picture frame, 17 or 18 hobo hookers (haven't decided yet), a pack of over taxed cigarettes and a fern at the local Lowes hardware store.  Shouldn't be a problem with that huh?   

16 All hail our benevolent dictators in black robes, those above bias, those above pomposity, those above arbitrary diktats and personal grievance.  They are truly the lords of our creation, and elevated above mortal men, exalted by their innate supremacy and wisdom to their infallible position.  All hail, all hail.

17

Honest Cloud,

If you expect us to sit here and believe that the authors of the Iowa state constitution and they would tell us that yes, their intent was to impose same-sex marriage--and every other form of marriage allowed by religion or sentiment--I will call you on that bet. If the authors had intended it the law would have already said such things explicitly. If the authors did not intend to impose same-sex marriage it is only by dictate that the ISSC could make its ruling.

18 17 or 18 hobo hookers (haven't decided yet)

You really should rethink that. It's hard to control over a baker's dozen of them at a time without everything going red and finding yourself, hours later, covered in blood and at least eight hobos short.

19 If wanting the people to decide on the creation of a new right makes me a bigot, well, count me in.

Step One: Does the existing Consitution address ghey marriage? No? Then:

Step Two: Did those who wrote the Constitution intend it to address ghey marriage? No? Then:

Step Three: Is there any precedent in Anglo-American common law that recognizes such a right? No? Then:

Step Four: Find pointy headed feel-gooders who will simply invent it out of whole cloth. Fuck the people.

20 I'm a 50-something loser who trolls blogs. That's why my kids are such social outcasts. One of them still shits his pants in school.

21 'Equal protection' only applies when the concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, as has existed both in our society and those that preceded it, for centuries.

It's easy when you want to change what words mean despite what they have always meant.

22 While I hate the judicial activism behind this decision (though not necesisarly the decision, the Clerks are officers of the government and their "conscience" does not come into it.

On the other hand, the Judge performs marriages at his discretion and should be able to refuse to perform a marriage for whomever he wishes. They have other alternatives (a Gay Wiccan Minister for example) to perform the marriage.

23 Justice Mark Cady“This approach  considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.”



Excellent. Bigamists next. No solid argument against it now.

Well thought out reasoning.

24

You really should rethink that. It's hard to control over a baker's dozen of them at a time without everything going red and finding yourself, hours later, covered in blood and at least eight hobos short.

 

Duly noted and I will pare that back to your recommended level 

OsamaHusseinIslamObama  2012'

(the terrorist/pirates choice)

-It's never to early to campaign-

25

Wait, why can't a judge decide not to marry gays if they can select what striaght couples they choose not to marry? What if my criteria is as whimsical as "I think this couple is creepy" and that definition, to me, covers 8% of straight couples (okay, being honest - like, 67% of straight couples) and 100% of gay couples? If it's not discrimination for me to use my judgment - or prejudice or personal dislike or scheduling conflicts or whatever - to decide not to marry some straight couples when I do marry others, why am I automatically excluded from using the same arbitrary, undoubtedly unfair judgment not to marry gays?

Also, unless you're talking about a specific judge, the correct neuter pronoun is "he." "A judge cannot decide to not perform gay marriages if he performs heterosexual marriages. English doesn't have an ungendered pronoun, and the she thing (which crops up everywhere) really irks me. It's blatantly political, for one thing, which makes it needlessly obtrusive. For another, for 500 years of modern English, we've used "he" as the neutral form, and trying to change it now retroactively affects all of previous writing. (Hence the gasps of outrage over calling God "He" in the Bible. Only unforgiveable morons could miss the point there.)

Sorry to go all grammar Nazi there.

26 My kids definitely learned a good lesson about honesty when I told them how I visit right wing blogs and pretend to be a moderate.

27 Honest cloud....prohibition against gay marriage IS equal protection. It applies equally to men and women. An upset against the will of the people by the courts is an affront to the Constitution.

Your characterization of anti-gay marriage citizens as " haters and bigots" belies your own insufferable vileness.

28 I would like to point out the irony of the anger-soaked honest cloud calling everyone else whiners, bigots, and haters. Keep reaching for that rainbow, dude.

29 It's so nice that our Iowa Liberal government gets to pick and choose what laws are mandatory and what permit discretion of the local officials. Consider concealed carry permits, for instance.While Iowa law facilitates their issuance, the county sheriff has great discretion in how willing they are to allow citizens in obtaining a permit.

And Iowa's property tax law is an even more amusing example of local tyranny. Iowa's law only provides for the consideration of appeals in four specific cases. The burden of proof is on the property owner, comparable analysis records used in the county assessor's determination are "available" by law but again subject to the cooperation of the county assessor. My experience has been that every assessor has taken a tax dispute to be an assault on their office worthy of their office using every resource available to attack the taxpayer. In Montgomery County, we had to litigate after a $25K tower property was repeatedly assessed at $300K. Other counties have shown evidence in the process and litigation of gross negligence and incompetence in the assessor's office, yet Iowa's law only provides taxpayer relief when the taxpayer can prove fraud was committed by the assessor. Accidents in failing to mail notifications (one was mailed to another resident, bundled with their tax notice), using inappropriate comparable property (a 50 year old decaying tower building was compared to a Wal-Mart and a Hy-Vee grocery due to the square footage being similar) and numerous other "accidents" couldn't be proven to be fraud, even when one county assessor admitted to making numbers up because "the county needs the tax revenue." In the private sector, Enron's executives were given multi-decade sentences for much, much less.

So I find it amusing this morning to read that numerous criminal investigations are underway with respect to the Treasury's administration of TARP. Folks, the whole government, Federal to county, is filled with incompetent idiots and criminals. Time for a reboot.

30 dishonest cloud, I asked about the Iowa Constitution, not what some asshole said. Just

31

"There is no need for discussion. I won! H8rz!"

Dramatic re-enactment of an honest cloud post. And a Barack Obama speech.

32 honest cloud, your time is up here. Move on. Any further comments from you referring to "bigots", "haters", "Bible-thumpers", or pretty much anything else I don't like are subject to modification or deletion. Consider this your warning if you want to keep commenting privileges here. The next step is banning.

It's all right for you to be pleased with the marriage decision. It's not all right to be a name-calling troll. Now, GTFOOH.

33 15 minutes and still no answer. Bi-sexual polygamists live in the shadows, like rats. Why do you all discriminate against us and spend so much time worrying about gays?  Don't I have the right to marry my lovers?  Fuck gays (figuratively that is, obviously I already do it literally.) Enough already with your hate.  This site is evil. 

34 All of a sudden five imbeciles in black robes decide to create a "right" out of whole cloth, discarding thousands of years of history, precedent, and societal convention, and we're supposed to say, "Uh. OK.....Whatever"  ?   Honest Cloud, if this makes me a bigot, then I'm a proud bigot. 

35 Wrong. That is exactly what the Iowa Supreme Court overturned.

Here's the problem you're grappling with: A court decision does not define logic.  A decision by a court can be utterly illogical and beyond any rational measure of common sense.

The only way that 'equal protection' can apply is when the court decides that 'marriage' has never meant a union between a man and a woman, but only between two undefined people.

Since this is obviously not the case, as evidenced by centuries of practice in Western culture, the court has decided to make up a standard that has never existed.

Your ad hominems are meaningless and merely demonstrate your ability to debate an issue.

36 In about 9 months is when the real fun begins...with all the gay divorce filings.

37 Why are people so vehemently against this? I just don't get it. I'm an independent that leans right, but I just don't understand the fierce opposition to gay marriage. Someone shed some light for me.

38 It's really not complicated.

When an out of control judiciary makes decisions that are contrary to natural law, their decisions have no weight.

The Iowa Supreme Court's decision is without authority, force, and should not be obeyed.  Just as Dread Scott should not have been obeyed.

All justices should be impeached and removed from the bench, they lack even basic ability to preside as a judge.

39 BTW, I do understand being upset with the courts over turning the peoples vote.

40 This BS is on deck in New York State, and it makes me ill. On the way to Court this past week, I told a guy collecting money for the ACLU politely, and firmly that I was against gay marriage because I thought children should be raised by a man and a woman, who each offer something unique to the development of a child.

I don't want equal adoption rights for gays, don't want to overturn thousands of years of civilization, and certainly don't want a small group of judges doing it.

The whole race analogy is complete and utter BS, and I'll say it: the sight of two, obviously gay women walking down the street with a little boy makes me want to throw up. I think it's a form of child abuse. Seeing two men with a boy or girl, ditto, though not as severely.

ITS A MADHOUSE. A MAAAADHOUSE!

41 Maybe we can just forbid all county clerks from filing paperwork on any marriage and make the Supreme Court do it themselves.

For every single marriage.

Funny that judges can change the Iowa constitution in a day but it takes 2 years for the people.

42

Bi-sexual polygamists live in the shadows

Well if you would have gotten a green card and immigrated here legally you wouldn't have that problem.

Oh shit... ICE! ICE! _{(it's funny to watch them all book out the back door)}

43 Even when I sockpuppet, I'm still the angry little pissant I've always been.

44 tcbevo- For some it is a simple as the knowledge that the word marraige has meant man and women and this is a radical redfinition. Many of us believe that such a redefinition will have long term negative social ramifications. Note the arguements on bigamy and incest.

45 The Constitution would've taken up a lot more pulp if it would've specified all the individual parties that were to be awarded equal rights, but our Founding Fathers were smart and efficient - they simply used the word every. Neatly summing up that "every" person would be provided the same rights as the others.  In order to ban gay marriage you either have to ban gay OR marriage.

46 Posted by: CPAC Smack at April 26, 2009 11:20 AM (2CFkQ)

Ignore erg.

47 In one respect, it'll be nice to have gays being married. That way, they can have the hell taxed out of them too per the marriage penalty. After setting both my wife's and my withholdings up to reflect more taxed than specified per the number of family members we have two years ago, it was so amusing to again see a $10K tax refund coming back disappear to $107 when I added my wife's W2 in Turbotax. Nothing like seeing that jump from a damn teacher's worthless salary into a higher bracket and AMT land.

Marry them and then tax the hell out of the gays. Maybe they'll have some appreciation for what us breeders have been subjected to.

48 So sometime next week the first gay marriages in Iowa will occur.

IIRC, there were some performed last fall before the injunction.  The DSM Register front page featured a photo of two ISU students who had been dating about three months getting married, having decided to do so literally three days before.  I've been waiting for the front-page photo of their dissolution--that's what happens to most 20-year-old non-pregnant short-term straight couples who get married on a whim--but nothing yet.

49

In order to ban gay marriage you either have to ban gay OR marriage.

Er, no. Considering that  at the time of the writing of the Constitution that sodomy was often a capital offense, it is simply rediculous to argue that the founders saw or allowed for gay marraige.

The case can be made that they were wrong but not that they saw equal protection as applying to gay marraige.

50 Tcbevo,

All gays are permitted to marry.  There is no ban on gays marrying.  No sexual orientation requirement to enter a marriage exists, but there are gender requirements.

What there is a ban on (or should be a ban on), is gay unions being called marriage.  By definition, a marriage is between a man and a woman.   It is the foundation of civil society, and is the unit proper for raising children for the continuation of said society.

51

The Constitution would've taken up a lot more pulp if it would've specified all the individual parties that were to be awarded equal rights, but our Founding Fathers were smart and efficient - they simply used the word every.

Don't be a fool. That's intellectual weaksauce.

A) The constitution does not provide ANYONE a RIGHT to marriage.

B) Marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, isn't denied to anyone - gay or straight. Straight people also cannot marry people of the same sex.

C) Sexual preferences are not protected class. Your argument is bullshit, rights are NOT given to EVERY person.

You may be denied your rights under due process of law under many different grounds. Immigrants and visiting non-residents do not have all the rights a citizen does. FELONS are routinely denied 2nd ammendment rights as well as the right to vote in elections.

Because being a fricken convict is not a protected class. The government can't discriminate between people on a very limited and specific number of explicitly listed criteria: race, sex (as in gender, not preference), religion, etc.

Sexual preference is not a protected class.

52 Er, no. Considering that  at the time of the writing of the Constitution that sodomy was often a capital offense, it is simply rediculous to argue that the founders saw or allowed for gay marraige.

Absolutely.  This is one of the "truths" the founders considered to be "self-evident", like the role of God in society.   They thought it understood, so there was no need to spell it out.  Otherwise the constitution would be the size of the tax code.

53 They are saying judges have no right to refuse a request to marry two people?

So if a male and female who have just been tried for murdering a judge but got off on a technicality request that a judge marry them, and the ceremony will be held in a crack house in the 'hood, the judge cannot refuse unless he declines to marry anybody at all ever? And if word gets out he performed a ceremony for a couple of friends he opens himself to a discrimination lawsuit?

There's something fundamentally wrong here. This looks like involuntary servitude, but it is at least a huge abridgment of personal freedom. How the hell did we get to this insane place?

54 "Otherwise the constitution would be the size of the tax code"

Which it kinda is in most European countries, where G-d exited long ago...

55

Well, I would definately NOT support a man or woman legally marrying their boat. At least not without a pre-nup. Boats can get expensive.

56 I've added a poll up top.

57 37 Why are people so vehemently against this? I just don't get it. I'm an independent that leans right, but I just don't understand the fierce opposition to gay marriage. Someone shed some light for me.

Good question.  Short answer: lawsuits.

Let's deal with the article.  Suppose some judge doesn't want to issue a marriage license to a particular same-sex couple.  That's a lawsuit and the judge will end up performing it anyway rather than a protracted court battle over a marriage that will be performed by some judge somewhere else anyway.

Then there's adoption.  Any adoption turned down for a "married couple" will result in a lawsuit, whether it's appropriate or not.  Note that straight couples wouldn't ordinarily sue over such things because they wouldn't have a discrimination claim in court.  I also wouldn't be surprised if many of these adoptions aren't serious, but more whimsical and made to prove a point.

Then there's the clergy.  Eventually some gay couple will sue a pastor or church for either refusing to perform the marriage or refusing to rent out the hall for a  reception.

Then there's the slippery slope.  Guaranteed, polygamy will be next.  And it won't be the apostate Mormon or the hippie commune that will win the first case on this.  It'll be a Muslim.  Bank on it.

By at least keeping civil unions separate, the state could delineate between the two forms of union and decide which benefits they confer and which ones they don't.  Moreover, if all civil unions are treated the same as each other, then there's no lawsuit problem.

58

I have a right to drive my car around on my property.

Does that mean you also have a right to drive my car around on my property?

No? Why, then we are not equal! The government is discriminating between people with regard to what rights they have, on the basis of ownership.

Which is perfectly fine. Ownership is not a protected class.

The idea that all people have all the same rights and privledges and no official part of the government can distinguish between any of them for any reason is farcically absurd.

Do Iranian citizens who immigrate here illegaly have a right to vote? WHY NOT? I thought we must all be treated equally.

Does Bill Gates have a right to public assistance housing and foodstamps?

59

In fairness, at one time the government and private entities could discriminate based on any personal criteria. The only recognized group was free citizens (excluding slaves and felons) and they had inalienable rights. Justice was supposed to be blind, but communities and states were supposed to be allowed to define themselves as they choose.

I'd be cool with going back to that. I'm a white, female, straight Christian. If honest cloud wants to discriminate against me, that's actually cool with me. It's his right. I'm free to find or create a community that is welcoming to me.

Equal protection is almost as abused as interstate commerce for subverting individual rights and freedoms. We were more protected before the government decided to proactively equally protect us all.

60

I am not opposed to civil unions as long as civil unions bestow all the same rights on a couple whether they are straight or gay. But, I support a church's right to refuse to marry a couple and my fear is that with the passage of these laws in the various states the logical next step is to force churches to perform a marriage ceremony even if they feel it is opposed to their teachings and beliefs. I don't think that's OK.

As an aside, I highly doubt the lawsuit that will eventually be brought to force this will be Joe and Bob vs. Omami Mosque. Why is that? Why is it OK to accept the Islamic rejection of this issue but not a Christian church's?

Also, I've given up thinking the courts are the last best non-biased part of our government. I feel like (notice I said feel, I have no evidence to back this up) the judiciary has veered from making their decisions based on interpreting the existing laws and has seized the opportunity to support politically hot issues with their decisions.

61

it is simply rediculous to argue that the founders saw or allowed for gay marraige

But that's the beauty of our Constitution, it tried to cover the unforseen of the future. I believe it made allowances for that. For the unknown changes that society would experience.  Equal Rights for everyone. There's no asterisk.

62

I'd be cool with going back to that.

I don't really think there's any problem with the classes that are currently protected. (Although the manner in which they force these classes onto private entities is another matter).

The problem is so many people don't seem to understand explicit statements. I say "you cannot discriminate on the basis of race or religion" and these nits run off thinking that you cannot discriminate, ever, about anything.

If a man is kicking you in the ballsack, you must not treat him any differently then you would treat Cindy Crawford when she's giving you a BJ because to do otherwise would be to differentiate, and therefor, discriminate between the two.

There are certain criteria upon which the government must not discriminate. All other criteria are fine. The criteria of "whether or not the person is inflicting physical violence upon me" is not a 'protected class' or off-limits criteria. You may, and indeed must if you want to be regarded as sane, discriminate between people who are kicking you in the balls and people who aren't.

People don't know what the fucking word 'discriminate' means.

Step one:

http://tinyurl.com/db5unp

63

Taney's decision was overturned by the 13th Amendment.

With respect to the county recorders in Iowa, they are government officials and have to obey the laws of the state whether they like those laws or not.  If they cannot follow this law, then they ought to resign.  There isn't a good conscience exception unless the law is unconstitutional.  However, the Iowa supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional, that it is under the Iowa constitution.

There is no other option than to amend that constitution.

64 It made unforeseen allowances for abortion?

65 Tcbevo, I have a really cute 14 year old neighbor, I'm 30. Do I have the right to marry her, why or why not?

66

Equal Rights for everyone. There's no asterisk.

Bullshit. You're being daft. Whether it is intellectual dishonesty, or intellectual incompitence, I cannot say.

But given any deep thought, it's absurd on it's face.

Can convicts own firearms? Can foreign nationals vote?

67   Mikey,

Unjust laws have no force of law, especially when they are contrary to the natural law.

The Iowa recorders are under no moral obligation to obey an unjust law.

68

Here's a valid question, what if a state voted for gay marriage and then it passed and that state's sc struck it down?  Would there be the same outrage?

Now before I take my sunday asskicking (we all remember my civilians shouldn't have barrett 50s post, that really stung guys, seriously)

IMO, if a group gets off its butt, gets the vote (aka will of the people) and amends the states constitution, then its all good.  If the people who lost the vote doesn't like it, get off your butt and get a vote to get rid of it or move to a saner state.

The people must be heard.

69 Actually, the only power the judiciary has is precedent.  So you can just argue that this particular same-sex marriage application is different from the one ruled on by the court.  Make them rule on every single one.

70

There isn't a good conscience exception unless the law is unconstitutional.  However, the Iowa supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional, that it is under the Iowa constitution.

The courts have overstepped their bounds.

There is no other option than to amend that constitution.

Yes there is: revolt against them. They must be put back into check.

See: Abraham Lincoln. "The court has made it's decision, now let's see them enforce it".

71 Here's a valid question, what if a state voted for gay marriage and then it passed and that state's sc struck it down?  Would there be the same outrage?

No.  But let's face it, the Left would take the lead on that, it would be schadenfraude for the rest of us.  We wouldn't have to bother with it.

72

18... 19... 22... votes. Fix! Fix! Fix!

;^)

73

Extremely O/T vent, my apologies.

Drudge has a picture of Obama golfing today. It's not that I'm opposed to the President getting time off, I'm not in the least. But, if we look back on the first 100 days of Obama he's had most weekends off at Camp David, or back to Chicago etc. He's been jetting around the US to sign bills and give speeches for seemingly no other reason than because he can. He's been overseas, to Latin America, to Canada. And, meanwhile we are daily innundated with the news that our country is in financial crisis. Pakistan is on the verge of collapse, Russia is playing games with Georgia, Israel and Iran are saber rattling, North Korea is firing up nuclear stuff, and now there's the potential for a major pandemic. Is it wrong of me to want my President to express some gravitas right now, instead of appearing on a magazine shirtless and strolling around in golf shorts?

Sorry, thanks for letting me get that out.

74

See: Abraham Lincoln. "The court has made it's decision, now let's see them enforce it".

You know, Abe Lincoln was the original manstud.  Wonder if we can get zombieabe to run in 2012.

75

Tcbevo, I have a really cute 14 year old neighbor, I'm 30. Do I have the right to marry her, why or why not?

Depends on where you live. Of course I don't support this. I'm only talking about consenting adults.

What's an adult?

76 @ 61

Dude, that's why the Constitution allowed for the amendment process.

But, nooooooo. It's too HARD to get three fourths of the state legislatures to agree with me, so I'll just avoid the hard work of persuading my fellow citizens to support my positions and have 5 assholes in black robes FORCE everyone to support my position.

Your understanding of our Constitution is so poor that I would hesitate to call it "understanding." Specifically, you seem to have the idea that the Constitution grants rights, when in fact it enshrines preexisting rights and places explicit restrictions on the government's abrogation of those rights.

Your attitude is dangerous.

77 Is it wrong of me to want my President to express some gravitas right now, instead of appearing on a magazine shirtless and strolling around in golf shorts?

Obviously, it's....racist.

78

But that's the beauty of our Constitution, it tried to cover the unforseen of the future. I believe it made allowances for that. For the unknown changes that society would experience.  Equal Rights for everyone. There's no asterisk.

I beg to differ

79

Depends on where you live. Of course I don't support this. I'm only talking about consenting adults.

Hypocrit. Lightweight.

The constitution does not say "adults" it says everyone. There's no asterisk, remember?

80 Tcbevo, I have a really cute 14 year old neighbor, I'm 30. Do I have the right to marry her, why or why not?

Posted by: Blarg the Destroyer at April 26, 2009 11:49 AM (QBQcg)

How are her tits?

81 Tcbevo, you said equal rights for everyone. From a biological standpoint, my 14 y/o neighbor is more than old enough to reproduce.

From a historical standpoint, she should be married by now.

So, you want equal rights for people who have no biological reason to marry and no historical precedence to marry, but you would deny me my love?

How do you square that circle?

82

Can convicts own firearms? Can foreign nationals vote?

No, because a convict has forfeited his privilege.  Depends on if/when the foreign national gets citizenship.

83 Mom? Can we move? That creepy guy next door is staring at me again.

84

No, because a convict has forfeited his privilege.  Depends on if/when the foreign national gets citizenship.

Are you saying that all people do not have the same rights and the government can discriminate on the basis of whether or not they have commited a crime, or whether or not they are a citizen?

85

I may have to re-think wedding the dozen or so hobo hookers,,, geezzz,  roundin' em' up is tougher than hearding cats.

 

OsamaHusseinIslamObama  2012'

(the terrorist/pirates choice)

-It's never to early to campaign-

86 Entropy,

I believe the quote is "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

And it was Andrew Jackson, not Abraham Lincoln.

87 Issuing a piece of paper doesn't mean you tacitly approve of what the paper says.  I'm sure they've given licenses to assholes and whores before.  Just do your job.

88

Tcbevo, you said equal rights for everyone. From a biological standpoint, my 14 y/o neighbor is more than old enough to reproduce.

From a historical standpoint, she should be married by now.

So, you want equal rights for people who have no biological reason to marry and no historical precedence to marry, but you would deny me my love?

How do you square that circle?

I'm giving my opinion. I think 2 consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to marry. 

89

I'm giving my opinion. I think 2 consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to marry. 

I think attractive women should be forced to marry. Me.

What? I'm giving my opinion.

90

Are you saying that all people do not have the same rights and the government can discriminate on the basis of whether or not they have commited a crime, or whether or not they are a citizen?

Yes. So I guess I'm back tracking on "Equal Rights" for everyone. But I think you know what I meant and now you're just parsing words.

91 'm giving my opinion. I think 2 consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be allowed to marry. /i>

Okay, this is where I've been trying to go with this. You have no problem with the courts inventing rights out of whole cloth. You have stated that you are opposed to me marrying my 14 year old neighbor.

What if the court decided that it was okay for me to marry my 14 year old neighbor. Would you be for it or against it, and on what grounds?

92 Why only 2 consenting adults?  Why not 2,222,222,222 (give or take a few here and there)? 

93 BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

94

I think attractive women should be forced to marry. Me.

I'm sure that's the operative word.

95 close tag fail

96 As an aside, it seems like every time I do on a drinking binge/hobo murder spree, I come back here and find that there's some new idiot troll spewing their nonsense.

Who is this honest cloud douchebag, and would someone please smash it with a hammer?

97 How about 3 consenting adults?  5 consenting adults?  X consenting adults?

Is there any unforeseen circumstance, in the future of course, that crosses the line for you?

98 Who is this honest cloud douchebag, and would someone please smash it with a hammer?

I think Gabe finally did.

99 This drives more people to our side!

When elected recorders have to be threatened to perform the duties that have been thrust on them by political correctness - the overreach by the left has already begun.

100 I love my Golden Retriever soooo much. How can you human-only marriagists deny us this love?

101

Okay, this is where I've been trying to go with this. You have no problem with the courts inventing rights out of whole cloth. You have stated that you are opposed to me marrying my 14 year old neighbor.

What if the court decided that it was okay for me to marry my 14 year old neighbor. Would you be for it or against it, and on what grounds?

^{_{You're WRONG. Look at my second post. I said I was against the courts making this law. I'm all for it being in the hands of the voters. All I've done here is give my opinion about it.  I DO NOT want the courts over turning the peoples vote.}}

_{^{I would vote against you marrying your 14 yr old neighbor because I think she's too young to make that decision. So are you now going to argue that gays are too "something" to make that decision?}}

102

But I think you know what I meant

I think what you really meant was "my personal opinion on what should be, should be enforced by the courts".

If we're now backtracking on 'equal rights for everyone', then what constitutionally mandates a right of gay people to marry persons of the same sex?

If you think there should be a constitutional right for such a thing, you'd have to ammend the constitution to add it.

I don't care whether or not you think gay people should or shouldn't marry each other. This isn't about that. Have a vote. Write a law. Feel free to support whichever position you wish.

But when it comes to courts making decisions, it does not matter what you think ought be legislatively, but what is.

If we've finally faced up to the fact that all people do not have rights that are equal in all ways and at all times with all things, then by what rational do you think that homosexuals have a pre-existing legislated right to marry people of the same sex?

As I have said the Constitution provides no right to marriage at all, for anyone. And even if it did, sexual proclivity is not a protected class. And even if it was, homosexuals are not precluded from entering the intersexual unions recognized and provided by the State.

Your new argument, now that you've (correctly) backtracked, is foundationless. It's hovering in thin air as an assertion of your personal preference.

Which is fine, if you're arguing for legislature. But horrendous if you're arguing, as you are, for a judicial decision.

103 I actually think we should stop fighting against gay marriage and let it happen. Sooner or later other people who aren't allowed to be married at this time will start demanding their right to marriage also and it will be gays who are called bigots because they'll be forced to explain why they can marry but some guy can't marry his mom or sister.

104 There is a consequence to the third vote possibility, which is to choose not to perform the marraige ceremony is likely to force the state to fire you. That is possibly  a more conscientious act then even quiting in protest.

105 OT but....From the head Swine at DHS:

Napolitano declares public health emergency @ 1:01 pm by Eric Zimmermann The United States will declare the swine flu outbreak a public health emergency, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano said today. Speaking at a White House press briefing, Napolitano said the declaration is not as severe it sounds. "It allows us to free up state and local resources" that otherwise would not be available, Napolitano said. The declaration does not necessarily convey the authority to initiate quarantines. "We're nowhere near that kind of decision,"

106

Entropy,

I've obviously made myself unclear. I hate when judges legislate from the bench. I disagree with what's happening in Iowa. I think this should be in the hands of the people. Of you and me. I was simply giving my opinion. NO WAY do I want judges over turning what the people want. I strongly believe in the will of the people, and if I'm on the short end of this one, so be it.

107 You are right Tcbevo, I did get you wrong on the courts thing. But, that doesn't change the fact that some lawyers wearing robes did this by fiat based on absolutely nothing.

I will not argue that homosexuals are too "something" to make a decision. I don't judge people like you do.

108

I will not argue that homosexuals are too "something" to make a decision. I don't judge people like you do.

Sorry you feel that way Blarg, but I'd bet anything that you and I would enjoy a beer together. If I seemed to be judgemental I sincerely appologize. I thought I was just giving my opinion on a single issue, of which we disagree. I respect your point of view.

109 Get the government completely out of the business of marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution and the state has no interests in marriage.

In fact, states only became involved in marriage in the last 70 to 100 years.

Government the hell out of my bedroom (and everybody else's -- but mainly mine) !!!

110

 

If we permit people to pick and chose what laws they wish to follow, chaos follows.  I don't agree with the decision but I'd follow the law, ill-conceived and ill-founded as it may be.  Representative democracy doesn't work when people can pick and choose what they wish to obey.  Change the system, sure - I think we should.  For instance, I think judicial review is an anti-democratic, authoritarian practice which should be re-examined and much more strictly limited via constitutional amendments and the legislature at both the federal and state levels.

But until then, if we don't want Islamists picking what laws they wish to follow according to the dictates of their conscience (e.g. killing people who make cartoon faces of Mohammed) we shouldn't support DIY civil disobedience by our own side.

Where a law was passed or otherwise promulgated in open violation of legal procedure (essentially an "illegal law"), I'd be more willing to support disobedience, but I'd always distrust the choice to disobey the law as fundamentally destructive to the social contract and tending toward anarchy. 

Granted, where the other side makes up constitutional rights that don't exist I think it's valid to call that illegal, but the best solution isn't selective disobedience.  I'd rather re-examine the practice of judicial review in general, and re-work our constitutions and other laws in such a way that the courts can't rewrite the law whenever their conscience moves them.  For starters at the very least I'd say if judges want to act like legislators they should regularly stand for contested elections and be otherwise accountable to the people.

Civil disobedience is the preferred weapon of the Left.  I'd rather be the one trying to prop up society and respect for the rule of law than the one tearing  it down.  While morality does trump legality, one should recognize that the recourse to "natural law" is highly corrosive to social order and should be used only in the most extreme cases (like refusing to gas people in concentration camps) unless one simply wants the government to collapse. 

And for those of you out there who'd say "good, let it collapse !" please have something else ready to put in place before you tear it down.  Destroying social institutions without replacing them is once again a tactic of the Left (see the family structure, rules against electoral fraud, the criminal justice system, perjury, child birth, child-rearing, public education, etc...).  The government will have to get a lot worse for me to chose to promote anarchy, and gay marriage isn't exactly comparable to the Holocaust.

111

He's been jetting around the US to sign bills and give speeches for seemingly no other reason than because he can. He's been overseas, to Latin America, to Canada.

Some asshole on CNN (a liberal NYT bunt, I'm pretty sure--and not Brooks) just made excuses for Obama saying "it's not taking a lackadaisical six months off at the ranch". Fucker.

112 I LOVE LAMP!

And we want to get married.

113

i'm going to make this one comment than scram to another blog so yall don't beat me up.

my husband is a judge--no, not an appellate judge, but a trial judge.  sometimes i feel like his "upholding" the law smacks of insanity, but that is what he is supposed to do, whether he likes it or not.

he has married a few people, but generally leaves that job to someone else (secular or religious).  i think it is because he was a divorce lawyer for  many years prior to taking the bench.

also, in virginia, judges are appointed, but i understand we are the exception here rather than the rule.  why don't yall just vote these judges out?

114

he has married a few people,

Bigamist! Bigamist! Burn! Burn!

115

And all superior court judges are appointed, Kelley, even in states that have elected lower court judges (I'm 99% certain). And no elected judges in Canada, provincial or federal, at any level.

116 if they think this is over they are sadly mistaken

117 Entropy,

The quote you attributed to Lincoln was actually Andrew Jackson's.

118 Darwinian apes going bananas in the jungle called planet Erf.

119 "But I think you know what I meant and now you're just parsing words."
tcbevo @ 90

Dude, that's what we lawyers flippin' do. We parse words. That's the whole purpose of our entire profession.

120 By the way, homosexuals are not banned from marriage.

121 #119 was Nom, not Brick.

122 So if a male and female who have just been tried for murdering a judge but got off on a technicality request that a judge marry them, and the ceremony will be held in a crack house in the 'hood, the judge cannot refuse unless he declines to marry anybody at all ever?

If the male and female were incarcerated in jail, they could get married.* This is why people who are anti-gay marriage are often described as bigots. Charles Manson has the right to get married, but let two dudes get married and it's the end of civilization.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld marriage as a fundamental right. Gay people are denied their equal protection under the law because they are denied that right solely due to their sexual orientation. The same cannot be said for any of the other examples given as a "slippery slope" argument. 14 year olds can already get married with parental consent and age restrictions on contracts are uncontroversial. Dogs** don't have rights and can't sign contracts. Nor can preventing bigamy be considered an equal protection violation, rights are individual, not collective.

*Whether a particular judge would be required to marry them is another matter. It isn't some sort of hobby, it's either part of their official duties or not, and they cannot discriminate if it's one of their official duties.

**Quick comparisons of gay marriage to marrying a dog is another reason anti-gay marriage advocates come across as bigots. Way to dehumanize homosexuals.

123 OK, so my original question was this:  Why do you, as a person - not as a lawyer or politician - oppose gay marriage? What is it in your heart/soul/whatever that makes you oppose this? 

124 tcbevo,

I was pretty much agnostic leaning supportive on the whole gay marriage ( agnostic in re gay marriage, not civil unions or legislating from the bench) idea for quite a while.  Not to go all Hew Hewitt and all, but this argument from Romney in 2004 finally persuaded me that it was a bad idea for us all.*  Here is the gist of it:

..."They (the judges and lawyers in MA) viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights."...

But, "Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother."

"[C]hanging the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same-sex practice."

There are other very troubling issues. We now must consider whether to amend our birth registration process, which currently requires the name of a mother and a father. Should we change our birth registration documents to read "Parent A" and "Parent B"? What impact would this have on child support enforcement, considering that birth certificates are a critical tool that are used to find and force absentee fathers to provide child support.

The transformation of mother and father into "Parent A" and "Parent B" is the model of the paradigm shift now underway in Massachusetts. The distinctive features of the union of male and female are going to have to be removed from our notions of marriage and family. The experience of same-sex couples will become the new norm for family life, because the "unisex" idea that gender has no public significance is the only model that can be construed as "inclusive" of both opposite-sex and same-sex unions. The result is not neutrality but the active promotion of a new unisex ideal, in which the distinctive features of opposite-sex relations will be submerged, marginalized, cast to one side, and redefined as discrimination in order to protect the new court-ordered public moral standard of the equality of same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

(Emphasis mine.)

*I know, people being persuaded by a rational argument is not supposed to happen.  I hereby ban myself from all focus groups for being a non-representative freak of nature.

125 OK, I'm sure I'm going to get in trouble here but This is how I see it.
First, there is religious marriage.  I have no opinion there.  That would be a matter for a particular sect to deal with.
Then there is secular marriage.  This is where law and gov't come into play.
In my ideal world the gov't would deal with everyone on an individual basis.  No group identities.  You get taxed as an individual.  You get insurance as an individual.  Your rights do not vary as a member of an approved group.  I understand that this is, generally, how things are supposed to be but we all know that is not how things are actually done.
Under my ideal system secular marriage would be handled as contract law.  You marry who or how many you want to.  You sign the contract, you live by the provisions.  And  you might want to make sure that contract has provisions dealing with any offspring resulting rom the contract.
Of course all this depends on everyone involved being legal adults.  Minors should be the responsibility of their biological or adoptive parents.
Now, I'm not preaching from the pulpit here.  If someone can show me how this would destroy society I'm willing to change my opinion.
What say you?

126

tcbevo,

I was pretty much agnostic leaning supportive on the whole gay marriage ( agnostic in re gay marriage, not civil unions or legislating from the bench) idea for quite a while.  Not to go all Hew Hewitt and all, but this argument from Romney in 2004 finally persuaded me that it was a bad idea for us all.*  Here is the gist of it:

..."They (the judges and lawyers in MA) viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights."...

But, "Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother."

"[C]hanging the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same-sex practice."

There are other very troubling issues. We now must consider whether to amend our birth registration process, which currently requires the name of a mother and a father. Should we change our birth registration documents to read "Parent A" and "Parent B"? What impact would this have on child support enforcement, considering that birth certificates are a critical tool that are used to find and force absentee fathers to provide child support.

The transformation of mother and father into "Parent A" and "Parent B" is the model of the paradigm shift now underway in Massachusetts. The distinctive features of the union of male and female are going to have to be removed from our notions of marriage and family. The experience of same-sex couples will become the new norm for family life, because the "unisex" idea that gender has no public significance is the only model that can be construed as "inclusive" of both opposite-sex and same-sex unions. The result is not neutrality but the active promotion of a new unisex ideal, in which the distinctive features of opposite-sex relations will be submerged, marginalized, cast to one side, and redefined as discrimination in order to protect the new court-ordered public moral standard of the equality of same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

(Emphasis mine.)

*I know, people being persuaded by a rational argument is not supposed to happen.  I hereby ban myself from all focus groups for being a non-representative freak of nature.

Deety, thanks. Excellent stuff.

127 But, "Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother."

No, they don't. It's generally better for them, sure, but it's not a right.

When the government's attempt to improve a child's parenting situation both starts and stops with banning gay marriage, I can't get behind that.

128 No, they don't. It's generally better for them, sure, but it's not a right.

By what criteria do you assert that children do not have a right to have a mother and father?

129 No, they don't. It's generally better for them, sure, but it's not a right.

By what criteria do you assert that children do not have a right to have a mother and father?

Because they don't. Who would the child of a single parent sue? How would they sue? They don't have a right to parents any more than they have a right to healthcare.

130 So, I'm just wondering. A lot of you say that the Founders would never have conceived of gay marriage, and y'all seem quite comfortable hiding behind that excuse.

Well, let's see. What are some other things the Founders might have missed?

Emancipation of slaves and their being citizens of the United States. Civil rights laws have no place in our society, huh?

Universal suffrage. I guess we need to take away a woman's right to vote.

Don't think they thought of radio or television or space flight. Guess we better start dismantling the FCC & NASA. After all, the Founders didn't think of it.

It's not in the Constitution, after all. And speaking of things not in the Constitution; any mention of how marriage is defined. The Constitution doesn't allow FOR gay marriage, but it doesn't DISALLOW it, either. Rather complicated, isn't it, morons?

Alright, what else didn't they allow for? National parks. There's one. Shut 'em down.

Whatever. Times change. Society changes. Racists turned to the bible to justify their laws against african-americans, keeping them in quasi-slavery until a bunch of black robed tyrants decided that it was immoral to keep the races separate, but "equal." Yes, those are sneer quotes, morons.

So, here's how it is. Iowa city and county offices will issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Recorders who won't do it for whatever reason can quit or be fired. Period. The law is the law, whether interpreted or legislated, and and state officials are required to execute the law.

You're a christian and you don't like the thought of gays being married? Fine. No one is requiring your churches to perform those weddings. The moment someone tries to, I'll be in the forefront against it. Your churches are your churches. But your churches are NOT my society, or my country. Your canonical laws have nothing to do with the law of the land except where the coincidentally coincide. Your religious beliefs are trumped by law.

131

Just a quick note about a strain of argument in this thread. The Ninth Amendment makes it very clear that the Constitution does not have to explicitly state which rights the people reserve in order for those rights to exist. It was the Founders' way of saying "These are the inalienable rights we could think of, but there are more of them out there. Just because we didn't list them here doesn't mean they don't exist."

So those people arguing about marriage not being explicitly in the Constitution don't seem to really understand what that document is all about. There are a lot of implied rights protected (with judges constantly disagreeing on just what those rights are). So the question becomes, is marriage a civil right?

U.S. Supreme Court precedent at this time says yes, in no uncertain terms. From Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

It doesn't get much clearer than that, does it?

Marriage is currently left to the states under the Tenth Amendment. The judicial branch of a state, including a Supreme Court, is still part of that state. People seem to think that Courts aren't part of government, especially when they do something they don't agree with. The Iowa Supreme Court gave an opinion on how marriage is defined in that state. The legislature or the people can do something about that. But, so far, none of this is in violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

This also cleans up the silly point about the 14 year old. Why can't the 14 year old get married? Because the state, at this point in time, says no, and there is no legal precedent telling them otherwise. The Supreme Court deals with civil rights and minors all the time. The argument about marrying a minor has far less to do with gay marriage than it does the entire body of existing law and precedent which governs the application of law to underage citizens.

132

One other point. As far as religious arguments go, as if churches will be forced to do anything. Doesn't this blog have any Catholic commenters? Has anyone else seen how Catholic churches deal with marriage, divorce, and annullments?

They're not exactly following civil law in which marriages and divorces they're recognizing.

Why is it that no one anywhere can get the Catholic Church to recognize civil marriage law in the slightest degree, but suddenly gay marriage will have this Special Awesome Power to destroy religion entirely and bind priests and pastors to its dread, glittery will?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

133 Robbie 132: Hush! They're not supposed to know about the Glitter that gives us our special powers!

134 130 Emancipation of slaves and their being citizens of the United States. Civil rights laws have no place in our society, huh?

Amendments.  Passed by due process of law.  Remember that the judges who find same-sex marriage in the various Constitutions say it was already there.  The emancipation of slaves was not already in the US Constitution and that's why we had the amendments.

It's not in the Constitution, after all. And speaking of things not in the Constitution; any mention of how marriage is defined.

EXACTLY!  So there is no Constitutional right to marriage.  Is this really that hard to understand?

The Constitution doesn't allow FOR gay marriage, but it doesn't DISALLOW it, either.

EXACTLY!  Again, you keep getting the facts right, but the conclusions backwards.

135 If you work for the government then you don't get to decide which laws you will comply with, the recorders should do their job. Leaders should remind them that no matter how stupid and offensive a court decision is it is law until it's changed. Efforts now should be towards throwing out this ridiculous decision with a State Constitutional Amendment. The definition of marriage should not be the sole purview of judges and I would hope all politicians, from both parties, would agree that the people themselves should have the opportunity to speak directly on the matter.If those politicians refuse they should be voted out of office, again no matter what party they belong to.

136 "I was pretty much agnostic leaning supportive on the whole gay marriage ( agnostic in re gay marriage, not civil unions or legislating from the bench)"

Deety, can I correctly infer from your contrast between "gay marriage" and "civil unions" that you support the latter, but not the former? I.e., you support state recognition of same-sex couplehood provided that it is clearly distinguished from traditional marriage?

137 Gay people are denied their equal protection under the law because they are denied that right solely due to their sexual orientation.

No, they aren't. Their sexual "orientation" is entirely irrelevant. Can a gay man and a lesbian not get married? They are denied marriage licenses solely on the basis that they do not meet the definition of marriage which is one man and one woman. Just as someone will not be issued a license plate for their car if they show up with a bicycle. They won't issue you a fishing license to hunt deer either.

138

EXACTLY!  So there is no Constitutional right to marriage.  Is this really that hard to understand?

Yes, when you're passingly familiar with the Ninth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

I will never understand the logic in these statements. Is this born of ignorance or willful dishonesty?

So marriage is the most Important Thing Ever, the cornerstone of civilization, the one institution standing between the Christian West and barbarism.

But, uhm, it's not a constitutional right. Nuh uh. We're not entitled to it. No one is. Doesn't exist. We could get rid of it tomorrow if we wanted.

So, in a constitution with an amendment that says "Just because we didn't mention it doesn't mean a right doesn't exist," the Most Important Thing Ever obviously doesn't come into play at all?

Huh. And this from the strict constructionists?

This makes my brain hurt.

139 131 The judicial branch of a state, including a Supreme Court, is still part of that state. People seem to think that Courts aren't part of government, especially when they do something they don't agree with. The Iowa Supreme Court gave an opinion on how marriage is defined in that state.

So you are arguing that there is no constraint on judicial power whatsoever. Whatever judges want, judges get.

This violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution and the voting rights act. I want as much voting power as a Supreme Court justice.

The legislature or the people can do something about that.

No they can't. The court can amend the Iowa constitution in a day. It takes the people a process that lasts a minimum of 2 years.

But, so far, none of this is in violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

But how is it not a violation of the 14th?

Because the state, at this point in time, says no,

And tomorrow it will say yes. Well, the judges will say yes.

I find your desire to be ruled by tyrants disturbing.

132 One other point. As far as religious arguments go, as if churches will be forced to do anything.

Really? The Knights of Columbus was fined $1000 by the BC human rights tribunal for refusing to rent out a hall for a lesbian wedding.

If you don't think those lawsuits are coming to the US and that there won't be a sympathetic judge, you are either naive, stupid or dishonest.

And if you don't think that the legal harassment is enough to have the same effect as a successful lawsuit, think again.

140 I.e., you support state recognition of same-sex couplehood provided that it is clearly distinguished from traditional marriage?

Yes. If they vote to do so.  I think that it is important to preserve a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

141

So marriage is the most Important Thing Ever, the cornerstone of civilization, the one institution standing between the Christian West and barbarism.

But, uhm, it's not a constitutional right.

YES!  Do you understand that "constitutional" is not synonymous with "a good idea" and "unconstitutional" is not synonymous with "a bad idea"?

142 **Quick comparisons of gay marriage to marrying a dog is another reason anti-gay marriage advocates come across as bigots. Way to dehumanize homosexuals.


Or, it could be that proponents of gay marriage just don't want people saying it because they realize it undercuts their entire argument. If marriage is all about love, as we're constantly told by gay marriage proponents, then explain to someone who loves their dog why he/she can't marry it.

143 No, they aren't. Their sexual "orientation" is entirely irrelevant. Can a gay man and a lesbian not get married?

News Flash! Gay people want to marry people of the same sex. How you could possibly think that's irrelevant is beyond me.

That sounds just like the arguments against miscenegation. They argued that it wasn't discriminatory because it affected white people and black people the same, both were prevented from marrying interracially.

144

Marriage is not a "right" in terms of couples.  Marriage is a right only insofar as it's defined for the individual.

In other words, every person has a right to marry, but they do not have the right to marry anyone they choose.  If I could marry anyone I wanted...well, I don't think Sean Connery's American.

So, when it comes to the "right" of any 2 people to marry, that right does not exist because rights do not belong to GROUPS of people.  Marriage between 2 people is not a right, it's a contract.

And, just as with any other contract, there are certain criteria to meet.  Marriage can be denied to 2 people for a multitude of reasons, and, as laid out currently, the contract is not awarded to couples who don't meet the requirement of male/female.

If the contract's requirements are to be changed, then a change in the defintion of marriage would be necessary...and what would it be changed to in order to be "inclusive" enough for no one be "discriminated" against?

THAT is the real problem most people have; it lies in a re-definition of marriage, one that would mutate into something so nonsensical in order to keep from offending that it would eventually make the word -- and the institution -- wholly irrelevant, resulting in a breakdown of the family unit.  So, what exactly will replace the family as the most basic building block of our society?

Hmmm...Sounds as if the government would be more than willing to help us out, because after all, they know how to raise children better than parents do.

...and people are worried about the RELIGIOUS agenda behind denying a change in marriage's definition?

I would vote for recognizing civil unions for gays, but they need to stop screwing around with an institution that springs from biology and is the foundation of a social structure based on individual rights.

145 News Flash! Gay people want to marry people of the same sex.

And Muslim people want to marry multiple people of the opposite sex.

146 So marriage is the most Important Thing Ever, the cornerstone of civilization, the one institution standing between the Christian West and barbarism.

I would characterize it more along the lines of marriage being the foundation of family life, the cornerstone of civilization, one of the most vital institutions standing between a liberal democratic civilization that recognizes the rights of the individual and the degradation of a totalitarian nanny state.  But that's just me.

147 Or, it could be that proponents of gay marriage just don't want people saying it because they realize it undercuts their entire argument. If marriage is all about love, as we're constantly told by gay marriage proponents, then explain to someone who loves their dog why he/she can't marry it.

Posted by: koopy at April 26, 2009 02:53 PM (GpFDF)

Better yet have them show one state law concerning marriage licenses which mentions love. There isn't one because again it is totally irrelevent. Love has nothing to do with it and it never has, at least as far as the state is concerned. If a man and a woman stood in Town Hall asking for a marriage license while stating emphatically that they don't love each other  would the clerk deny them? Of course not.

148 But that's just me.

Erm, and Barbelle @144 apparently.  But expressed better than my attempt.

149

Re: 139. There are plently of checks on judicial power. Amendments, for one. Impeachment or elections, depending on the state. On the federal level, Congress has all kinds of tools to reign in the Supreme Court. They've simply never had the political will to use any of them. But that's a different question.

This violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution and the voting rights act. I want as much voting power as a Supreme Court justice.

This violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution and the voting rights act. I want as much voting power as a Supreme Court justice.

This is silly. You might as well argue that you deserve the same voting rights on legislation as a legislator. You can agitate for direct democracy if you like, but it'd involve a constitutional rework. And I really don't think you'd like the results. Urban areas are only getting more populous and democratic.

But how is it not a violation of the 14th?

What you're arguing is that any Supreme Court decision is invalid, because the people didn't vote on it. This is a pretty radical view, and it's anathema to our current constitutional system. You're basically agitating for the abolition of the third branch of government. All because of gay marriage? A bit extreme.

I find your desire to be ruled by tyrants disturbing.

Well, we all make our compromises. Representative democracy is the balance struck between tyrants and the rule of the mob. Personally, I want neither. I recognize the right of the people to amend their constitutions as they see fit. You don't seem to want to recognize the third branch of government at all. I'd say I'm in safer constitutional waters here.

Really? The Knights of Columbus was fined $1000 by the BC human rights tribunal for refusing to rent out a hall for a lesbian wedding. If you don't think those lawsuits are coming to the US and that there won't be a sympathetic judge, you are either naive, stupid or dishonest.

The United States is not Canada. Sorry. Canada does all kinds of goofy shit, especially in regards to First Amendment issues, that will not stand here. And if anyone tried to abridge religious liberty in America in such a way, I would be your unreserved ally in the fight against it. I'm sorry, but I find "Zomg, some super liberal country is doing something stupid, and that's what will happen in America!" as silly as leftists who are constantly comparing fundamentalist Muslims to the American religious right.
"Muslims are religious. Christians are religious. Muslims kill gays. Christians want to set up gay concentration camps!" Not so much.

If you don't think those lawsuits are coming to the US and that there won't be a sympathetic judge, you are either naive, stupid or dishonest. And if you don't think that the legal harassment is enough to have the same effect as a successful lawsuit, think again.

Yes, lawsuits. The horror. If that were our standard for anything at all, we'd never get anything done. Which, given the general disposition of Conress, might not be the most horrible thing.

YES!  Do you understand that "constitutional" is not synonymous with "a good idea" and "unconstitutional" is not synonymous with "a bad idea"?

Do you not understand the Ninth Amendment and ample Supreme Court precedent on marriage matters? You do realize that the courts have stated, for many decades now, that marriage is a constitutional civil right, yes?

150 Posted by: dorkafork at April 26, 2009 02:54 PM (LIM+2)

News Flash! Gay people want to marry people of the same sex. How you could possibly think that's irrelevant is beyond me.

News Flash! People want a lot of shit. What does that have to do with anything? I want my pennies to to certified as gold by the US mint. Can I get a judge to decide copper is gold? Should we redefine the meaning of the word gold to suit the people who have copper? Marriage is a union of two people of the opposite sex. Want the state to recognize  your marriage? Find someone of the opposite sex.

That sounds just like the arguments against miscegenation. They argued that it wasn't discriminatory because it affected white people and black people the same, both were prevented from marrying interracially.

Not even comparable. State laws maintained that a man and a woman could get married. Miscegenation laws were passed to prevent that. The only way that works is if one of the people  is no longer a person and the Constitution already prevents that. 

151 So, when it comes to the "right" of any 2 people to marry, that right does not exist because rights do not belong to GROUPS of people. Marriage between 2 people is not a right, it's a contract.

And, just as with any other contract, there are certain criteria to meet. Marriage can be denied to 2 people for a multitude of reasons, and, as laid out currently, the contract is not awarded to couples who don't meet the requirement of male/female.

It is a right according to multiple Supreme Court decisions. It is a right that is being denied to people based on their sexual orientation. The male/female "requirement" is unjust and does not promote any legitimate interest of the state.

152 Does anyone here support laws against two men having sex? Because, after all, it wouldn't be a law against homosexual sex, the homosexuals could still have sex with women, right?

153

If marriage is all about love, as we're constantly told by gay marriage proponents, then explain to someone who loves their dog why he/she can't marry it.

Because dogs aren't able to legally enter into contracts. Same reason minors can't get married. Consenting adults, however, reserve the right to enter into contracts.

Marriage isn't only about love, although that's part of it. It's also about stability, an ordered society, the rearing of children, the establishment of community, etc. etc. etc. Why disincluding an entire minority from those things seems like a good idea to people I'll never understand.

Because disincluding gays from any kind of social acceptance and expectation worked out oh so well in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You might want to consign gay youth to the alleys of society and attendant drug use, HIV, and psychological hell. I'm sure, in your mind, it's the compassionate thing to do. Sorry if I don't countenance it along with you, though.

154 You do realize that the courts have stated, for many decades now, that marriage is a constitutional civil right, yes?

For how many decades have the courts stated that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right?

155 It is a right that is being denied to people based on their sexual orientation. The male/female "requirement" is unjust and does not promote any legitimate interest of the state.

Posted by: dorkafork at April 26, 2009 03:09 PM (LIM+2)

Again, what clerk's office asks the "orientation" of anyone applying for a marriage license? If they don't then it has nothing to do with it. The word marriage has a specific definition, always has and long before there was anything like a US Constitution. Th Constitution doesn't define marriage? Why the hell should it define something which has a universal definition? Does it define the word water? Does that mean I should be allowed to supply the military with bottles of olive oil instead of water if I am a contractor for them and I decide oil is water? What legitimate interest does it promote? How about not having to redefine a word every time somebody gets a bug up their ass?

156 If marriage is all about love, as we're constantly told by gay marriage proponents, then explain to someone who loves their dog why he/she can't marry it.

Because the dog can't say "I do," you fucking simpleton. Marriage is a mutually agreed-upon contract requiring TWO legally consenting parties.

157

It is a right according to multiple Supreme Court decisions.

No, dummy, all these "multiple" decisions you (don't) cite don't say it's a right granted to COUPLES.  It's a right recognized for INDIVIDUALS.  Even the decision cited in the thread above doesn't say it's a right for COUPLES.

Furthermore, wrap your brain around something fundamental, please...

RIGHTS BELONG TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT GROUPS.

If all these "multiple" decisions you (don't) cite DID screw up an grant a "right" to a couple, then the Supreme Court just violated the very definition of a right.

But then, you don't seem to have a problem with violating definitions.

Now, run along and feed your rep by posting something stupid about evolution somewhere.  It would save me the time of repeating myself on the points I already made in my first post that you chose to ignore.

158

Because disincluding gays from any kind of social acceptance and expectation worked out oh so well in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You might want to consign gay youth to the alleys of society and attendant drug use, HIV, and psychological hell. I'm sure, in your mind, it's the compassionate thing to do. Sorry if I don't countenance it along with you, though.

Posted by: Robbie at April 26, 2009 03:13 PM (+D9QR) 

Does anyone here support laws against two men having sex? Because, after all, it wouldn't be a law against homosexual sex, the homosexuals could still have sex with women, right?

Posted by: dorkafork at April 26, 2009 03:12 PM (LIM+2)

Now we have just entered looneyville.

159 Is it wrong of me to want my President to express some gravitas right now, instead of appearing on a magazine shirtless and strolling around in golf shorts?

He's on the golf course looking for the REAL torturers

160

Because the dog can't say "I do," you fucking simpleton.

OH, so you're denying the right of a MUTE to get married?

You bigot.

Marriage is a mutually agreed-upon contract requiring TWO legally consenting parties.

Only TWO?

You bigot.

161 Because dogs aren't able to legally enter into contracts.


Because the dog can't say "I do," you fucking simpleton.


Awww, such anger. Funny how those goalposts get moved once your arguments are shown for the nonsense they are. So marriage is no longer just about love, but also the ability to enter into a contract? Then explain why an adult who loves their parent or adult sibling can't marry them.

162

Now we have just entered looneyville.

I'm pretty sure it's the mayor.

163 @152 Does anyone here support laws against two men having sex? Because, after all, it wouldn't be a law against homosexual sex, the homosexuals could still have sex with women, right?

@153 You might want to consign gay youth to the alleys of society and attendant drug use, HIV, and psychological hell. I'm sure, in your mind, it's the compassionate thing to do. Sorry if I don't countenance it along with you, though.

And heeeere's the shut-uppery.  Implied and explicit.  Opposition to changing the meaning of marriage is the same as / or is motivated by anti-gay bigotry.

164 Marriage is a mutually agreed-upon contract requiring TWO legally consenting parties.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at April 26, 2009 03:18 PM (tungY)

No, marriage is the union of a man and a woman by defintion. There is nothing preventing the state from making ready made contracts for same sex unions as there are for opposite sex unions if the people of that state so choose. The point is the later is marriage, the former is something else. What is it? Who cares? Call it whatever you like. Just don't call it marriage, because it isn't.

165

For how many decades have the courts stated that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right?

Hold on, let me catch up to the goal posts. A'right, made it. Friggin college football fans hangin all over the things.

The same argument could be made (and was for a very long time) about interracial marriage. While I don't find race and orientation completely equivalent, I do find the same arguments being made towards gays now as were being made against racial minorities then.

Why do people think those are good arguments this time around?

The U.S. system is not perfect. It has taken centuries to actualize the ideal set down in the Constitution, to spread equality to every segment of society. Rights exist independently of the law. Just because a court didn't say "Here are your fundamental rights" doesn't mean the people didn't possess those rights. It's all a matter of legal recognition over time for what already exists under natural law.

To say "Well, no one mentioned this right exists, so it doesn't" is the most severe misreading of the Constitution possible. It actually gets the Constitution and entire intent behind it backwards. Our founders wrote that document to protect our rights, not to grant them. You seem to think the government must explicitly grant them, which is a far more authoritarian and left-wing view of things than I think a lot of anti-gay marriage conservatives recognize.

166 No, dummy, all these "multiple" decisions you (don't) cite don't say it's a right granted to COUPLES. It's a right recognized for INDIVIDUALS. Even the decision cited in the thread above doesn't say it's a right for COUPLES.

Furthermore, wrap your brain around something fundamental, please...

RIGHTS BELONG TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT GROUPS.

I'll try and "wrap my brain" around the very same thing I mentioned in comment #122.

It would save me the time of repeating myself on the points I already made in my first post that you chose to ignore.

Emphasized for irony.

167 It's all right for you to be pleased with the marriage decision. It's not all right to be a name-calling troll. Now, GTFOOH.

Gabe, tell it NGHAGYFSB (now go home and get your fuckin' shine box)

168

And heeeere's the shut-uppery.  Implied and explicit.  Opposition to changing the meaning of marriage is the same as / or is motivated by anti-gay bigotry.

I said nothing of the sort. Let's not journey down persecution lane just yet. I simply grow rapidly tired of the constant double standards and hypocrisy, the sheer mental gymnastics required in anti-gay marriage arguments. First marriage is the most important, stabilizing institution we have. Well, isn't one of the most common criticisms of the gay community about its inherent instability? Marriage opponents write entire books delineating the importance and vitalness of marriage to society, but then never entirely explain why those things should be withheld from a segment of the population - arguably the one segment that needs them most in this day and age.

If marriage as an institution is the greatest force in our society for social stability, why wouldn't you want that extended to every person possible?

It's almost as if people make the argument for the importance of marriage, suddenly realize where that logic is going, and stop right before they reach the gays, without any rhyme or reason. It's a gap in pro-marriage, pro-family thinking that cannot be unseen, so it is simply ignored.

169 It's almost as if people make the argument for the importance of marriage, suddenly realize where that logic is going, and stop right before they reach the gays, without any rhyme or reason.

It's not just "making the argument". The practice is also 180 degrees from the arguments against gay marriage. The government doesn't check to see if your marriage is stable in the first place. The government doesn't check (a la Romney) that a child has both a mother and a father, only that the child is being properly cared for. (Which it can do for homosexual couples that have adopted children.) And to use a definition of marriage that only affects one particular sexual orientation... it ain't right. And it also ain't right if the only argument the opposing side is reduced to is the dictionary definition. It's either just or unjust, regardless of Webster's.

I think I've said my piece.

170 Well, isn't one of the most common criticisms of the gay community about its inherent instability?

If the instability of the gay community is inherent, what makes you think gay marriage will change it? Isn't it more likely that the instability of the gay community will become the norm in marriage?

171 Democracy is dead.

172 Hold on, let me catch up to the goal posts. A'right, made it. Friggin college football fans hangin all over the things.

I didn't shift any goal posts.  I merely thought that you might have been a little DeSean Jackson in your assertions as if you had scored a winning point or something.

You seem to think the government must explicitly grant them, which is a far more authoritarian and left-wing view of things than I think a lot of anti-gay marriage conservatives recognize.

Stop naming your straw men You. 

173 It's almost as if people make the argument for the importance of marriage, suddenly realize where that logic is going, and stop right before they reach the gays, without any rhyme or reason. It's a gap in pro-marriage, pro-family thinking that cannot be unseen, so it is simply ignored.

It sounds like you're the one doing the ignoring. People in favor of traditional marriage have always said the stability comes from the fact that it's between a man and woman. You may not agree, but to say it's being ignored just isn't true. Your argument, on the other hand, goes back to suggesting that it's marriage itself that provides stability, so you'll have to explain why everyone can't get married, not just gays and straights.

174

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the people. Nothing about dogs, cats or boats. My best friend uses this argument, that if we allow same sex marriage soon you can marry your dog. The Constitution is about People. Us. You. Me. Him. Her.

175
IMHO, next step after gay "marriage" won't be polygamy or polyandry: it will challenges to consanguinity laws. After all, if my sister and I want to marry, what interest does the state have in denying us that right? Or if a father and his adult daughter want to marry, on what grounds can the state say no?

This is not a reductio ad absurdum: it's the next logical step after gay "marriage". I fully expect that I will live to see two gay brothers sue to be permitted to marry, and win. Probably in Massachusetts.

176

Re: 169 I actually agree with most of that sentiment.

The argument, really, is one of recognized social standing. It's a progression. We used to have a social order that went male, race, female, sexuality. Males had all their fundamental rights legally recognized. Then racial minorities were included. Then women. And so on. Marriage, as an instution, allowed for these changes. When women and racial minorities gained equal access to the institution, the institution didn't fundamentally change. I believe gays are on this continuum.

I recognize there are a lot of gay activist leftists out there who want to tear the entire social order down around them. They get the most press, they run all the organizations, they're the ones on the news every night. But if you actually sift through the scant polling data, pick through the community's controversies, you'll find that non-activist gays - the overwhleming number of gays - generally don't share in the activists' nihilistic vision. Look at the membership numbers of the activist organizations. They're in the thousands in a country with millions of gays.

The average gay couple is not at all interested in reworking marriage with the aim of weakening it. All they want is access to it as it exists, with all its strengths and burdens, privileges and penalties.

What really changes the instution are laws like no fault divorce. They have fundamentally weakened the institution and diminished it's importance in society. I find Third Way types far more dangerous, the people who want government out of marriage entirely. That'll do untold damage to the institution.

Including people within marriage has never had the kind of impact hundreds of laws and bad ideas tinkering with how it works have had.

With all of the threats faced by marriage, it seems very odd to me that the most harmless one has been targeted as the most dangerous, while the laws and changes that are actually destroying marriage within our system of law continue unabated, unchallenged, and unnoticed. If it isn't bigotry, and I'm not saying all opposition to gay marriage is, then what is it? Was gay marriage the straw that broke an aging camel's back? Was this merely the easiest thing to oppose, because people know tightening divorce laws would be massively unpopular? Is it as simple as mere political cowardice and opportunism to express a general disdain for the direction of marriage over the past several decades?

I just don't see how extending stability is the worst crime possible, when so many other laws and changes have been tearing apart that stability bit by bit, with those changes being let slide with barely any comment from the people suddenly very concerned about the gays.

Logically, it doesn't stand up for me.

177 149 Re: 139. There are plently of checks on judicial power. Amendments, for one.

It takes at least 2 years in Iowa to pass an amendment.  Unless you are a member of the judiciary.

impeachment

Requiring a supermajority, which is not something that is required on the court to declare a law unconstitutional.  And again, it takes more time to do this than it does for the court to strike down a law.

> This violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution and the voting rights act. I want as much voting power as a Supreme Court justice.

This is silly. You might as well argue that you deserve the same voting rights on legislation as a legislator.

No, they get the same legislature vote that I do.  But they get an extra vote for the judiciary.

> But how is it not a violation of the 14th?

You're basically agitating for the abolition of the third branch of government.

As it stands, yes.  I do not believe in the oligarchy of the legal profession and I do not recognize their equality or, now, supremacy.

All because of gay marriage?

You haven't been here long, have you?  I've advocated maximum salaries for lawyers and judges.

> Really? The Knights of Columbus was fined $1000 by the BC human rights tribunal for refusing to rent out a hall for a lesbian wedding. If you don't think those lawsuits are coming to the US and that there won't be a sympathetic judge, you are either naive, stupid or dishonest.

The United States is not Canada. Sorry. Canada does all kinds of goofy shit, especially in regards to First Amendment issues, that will not stand here.

Ah, so the answer is that you are dishonest.  Thanks.  You know damned well that such lawsuits are in the offing and that they will attack the tax-exempt status of various religious organizations.

Moreover, since same-sex marriage is now a Constitutional right, lower court judges will be sympathetic and religious organizations will be cowed by legal harassment.  Plus, since judges can just make it up, eventually a high court will be persuaded.

Do you not understand the Ninth Amendment and ample Supreme Court precedent on marriage matters? You do realize that the courts have stated, for many decades now, that marriage is a constitutional civil right, yes?

So you say.  It's simply this: These provisions in the various constitutions were there for generations.  If there were any indication that they included same-sex marriage, then they would have had same-sex marriage at that time.

178 Brown Line @ 175

Although I understand your reasoning, and do see that coming to fruition, it seems to me that incest is still too powerful a taboo to overcome.  Polygamy is next, and it won't be some spooky white guy in the Utah desert bringing suit.  Nope, muslims will sue and win.  If man/woman requirement is invalid, the number "2" doesn't stand much of a chance. 

179 The male/female "requirement" is unjust and does not promote any legitimate interest of the state.

Really?  Well if the male/female requirement does not promote any legitimate interest of the state, what about the 2 people requirement? 

For that matter, how does marriage itself promote any legitimate interest of the state?

180 Because disincluding gays from any kind of social acceptance and expectation worked out oh so well in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You might want to consign gay youth to the alleys of society and attendant drug use, HIV, and psychological hell.

And there it is.  The admission.  It has nothing to do with marriage.  It has to do with some people who are so psychologically insecure that they need to force the state to approve of them in some way.

Believe me, it won't be enough and then there will be a well-funded effort to go after churches and their tax-exempt status.

181

Your argument, on the other hand, goes back to suggesting that it's marriage itself that provides stability, so you'll have to explain why everyone can't get married, not just gays and straights.

Define everyone. Who else is there outside of gays and straights? Polygamy/incest? There are arguments against I'm prepared to make.

It's the institution and attendant social expectations that provide the stability. We could, and people have, written entire books on this topic. In summary, it's not the marriage certificate that provides stability. Families expecting their children to marry and settle down provide that stability. Expectations of social responsibility provide that stability. Expectations and social  pressure to be monogamous encourage that stability. Legal ties and binds of mutual care, support, and legal responsibility provide for that stability. It's an entire, well, institution.

One gays are currently exempt from.

It's about socializing gay citizens to behave as their heterosexual counterparts. (Leftist gay activists refer to this in horrified tones as "assimilation").

When you disinclude people from their social responsibilities, expectations, and institutions, you shouldn't be entirely surprised when they start bouncing around like a bunch of out of control monkeys. I'm not going to argue there are no differences between the sexes. Obviously, two males in a relationship aren't going to have the same ideas about sex and their relationship that a man-woman pairing do. Two gay men won't necessarily be transformed into Ozzie and harriet by virtue of marriage.

But more of them will, especially if they're raised with those expecations placed upon them. And wouldn't we want to maximize social pressure and expectation towards marriage, monogamy, and family?

182 Guaranteed, polygamy will be next.

I wouldn't mind a wife on each side while I'm watching TV.  One to fetch beer, the other samiches.  You say this like its a bad thing.

183 If recorders don't want to affirm or process gay marriages, they should resign.  I still don't like this judicial activism business, Vermont did things the right way.

184 First marriage is the most important, stabilizing institution we have. Well, isn't one of the most common criticisms of the gay community about its inherent instability? Marriage opponents write entire books delineating the importance and vitalness of marriage to society, but then never entirely explain why those things should be withheld from a segment of the population - arguably the one segment that needs them most in this day and age.

It's almost as if people make the argument for the importance of marriage, suddenly realize where that logic is going, and stop right before they reach the gays, without any rhyme or reason. It's a gap in pro-marriage, pro-family thinking that cannot be unseen, so it is simply ignored.

People are making the argument for the importance of heterosexual marriage in stabilizing families, with children.  The stability or instability of the relationships between two people of the same sex is neither here nor there.  The pro-family thinking is that generally children are better off when they are raised within the institution of marriage.

Redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would deprive a class of children of their birthright to be raised by their natural mother and father. It would advance the notion that children do not need a mother and a father, let alone their own mother and father.

Same-sex “marriage” would eliminate in law and weaken in culture the ideal that children should be conceived, born, and raised by their married, natural parents.  marriage would be redefined as simply the private relationship of consenting adults, and parenthood would be understood solely as a legal phenomenon of those choosing to take responsibility for a child.

185 Marriage isn't only about love, although that's part of it.

It's none of it.  Marriage is about marriage.  Marriages were traditionally arranged across all societies.  It's about breeding and the maintenance of the larger family structure.

Why disincluding an entire minority from those things seems like a good idea to people I'll never understand.

Because it isn't about marriage for you.  It's about acceptance.  It's about that mental illness I mentioned above, that desire to be approved of by society.

Whether they like it or not.

186 We the people. Nothing about dogs, cats or boats.

Spain is in the process of giving full legal rights to apes.  Household pets are not far behind.

187 It's the institution and attendant social expectations that provide the stability.

And what happens to those "attendant social expectations" when the whole social structure undergirding it is struck down?

As much as you might want it to be the case, judges cannot impose social mores.

Though maybe that's next: Thoughtcrime.

188 I wouldn't mind a wife on each side while I'm watching TV.  One to fetch beer, the other samiches.  You say this like its a bad thing.

Nagging.  In stereo.

189

Ah, so the answer is that you are dishonest.  Thanks.  You know damned well that such lawsuits are in the offing and that they will attack the tax-exempt status of various religious organizations.

Moreover, since same-sex marriage is now a Constitutional right, lower court judges will be sympathetic and religious organizations will be cowed by legal harassment.  Plus, since judges can just make it up, eventually a high court will be persuaded.

Dishonest how? As I stated above, no one has yet explained to me how gay marriage will wield an anti-religious power that civil marriage currently does not. Civil marriage has never budged the Catholic Church. How will that change? "People will file lawsuits!" People file lawsuits over all kinds of shit. There are always lawsuits over churches' tax exempt status. They did not start because of gay marriage. The question is whether or not those lawsuits will succeed on the grand scale. In Canada, that sort of nonsense flies. In America, not so much (outside of the Ninth Circuit, that is). It's an ineffective boogey man. "A guy in some other country is doing something!" Yeah, and religious fundamentalists in other countries do all sorts of fairly heinous things. I don't run around screaming about American Christians as a result. Find me concrete cases of where Canadian-style religious infringement is upheld in the highest courts in America, and I'll start sending money to the defense.

It's simply this: These provisions in the various constitutions were there for generations.  If there were any indication that they included same-sex marriage, then they would have had same-sex marriage at that time.

Same argument for interracial marriage. "Well, gee, they didn't specifically talk about race and marriage. The founders would've never countenanced it! Everyone knows they intended whites to marry whites."

It's just not a very good argument, sorry.

190 A repeat of my #109 above:

Get the government completely out of the business of marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution and the state has no interests in marriage.

In fact, states only became involved in marriage in the last 70 to 100 years.

Government the hell out of my bedroom (and everybody else's -- but mainly mine) !!!

191 Robbie,

Actually you are wrong about the length of time during which interracial marriages were illegal. For more information on the subject, please read Leon Higginbotham's book: A Matter of Race.

You're welcome in advance for clearing up your historical ignorance.

P.S. Gay marriage has never been acceptable by any society with which I am familiar until quite recently. Therefore, your historical ignorance has breed a poor analogy.

192

Posted by: Rocks

No, they aren't. Their sexual "orientation" is entirely irrelevant. Can a gay man and a lesbian not get married? They are denied marriage licenses solely on the basis that they do not meet the definition of marriage which is one man and one woman. Just as someone will not be issued a license plate for their car if they show up with a bicycle. They won't issue you a fishing license to hunt deer either.

Hey, hey, hey, we don't need no stinking logic here.

Equal wants should never be trumped by tradition.

193

Redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would deprive a class of children of their birthright to be raised by their natural mother and father. It would advance the notion that children do not need a mother and a father, let alone their own mother and father.

Same-sex “marriage” would eliminate in law and weaken in culture the ideal that children should be conceived, born, and raised by their married, natural parents.  marriage would be redefined as simply the private relationship of consenting adults, and parenthood would be understood solely as a legal phenomenon of those choosing to take responsibility for a child.

But it's a completely bogus, dishonest argument. I understand that you legitimately feel that the well-being of children is at stake, but for you and the larger pro-family movement to have any credibility, you'd be spending far more time arguing against changes in law and society that have a far greater impact on the institution.

I'm sorry, a far larger segment of the population has been doing just fine "weakening the ideal". Gays are, what, 3% of the population? Of them, how many want or will get married? You're looking at a percent or two of marriages here. Furthermore, many gays who want children will be picking them up out of adoption agencies and foster care.

Meanwhile, what's the illegitemacy rate in this country? How many children are living with single parents? How many divorces? How many in foster care and adoption systems? I don't see hundreds and thousands of blog posts and message board threads and money combatting these things. Mention gay marriage, and everyone is suddenly terribly concerned about the foundation of our very civilization. Note that this supposed ideal is barely being met by heterosexuals, and people shrug, say "What can you do?" and move towards the easiest, weakest target they can find.

I asked before, and I feel like I have to again. Is this pure political cowardice? Do you realize you can do absolutely nothing about the state of marriage on the grand scale, but you currently (and not for long) have the power to oppose this?

I cannot help but feel that people constantly bemoaning how gays fit into families and the raising of children are like someone accusing a man of murder while ignoring the genocide happening in their backyard. It's very hard for me to take the vigorous opposition to gay marriage seriously when the loudest voices against are so utterly, dreadfully silent when it comes to the giant fucking mess straight people have been making for decades.

But, oh no, some gays want stability and government security for their families, and it's all just falling apart now, isn't it? Deck chairs, titanic, etc.

I'll take pro-family advocates seriously when pro-family advocates seem even passingly serious about, well, families.

194 Get the government completely out of the business of marriage.

But doesn't that necessitate getting the government more involved in the business of parenthood?  If marriage becomes merely the private relationship of consenting adults, parenthood would be understood solely as a legal phenomenon of those choosing to take responsibility for a child.  Aren't legal phenomena the purview of the courts?  I'm not sure that it is a good thing to have Hillary Clinton's village raising our children.

195 189  Dishonest how? As I stated above, no one has yet explained to me how gay marriage will wield an anti-religious power that civil marriage currently does not.

It is now a Constitutional right.  We are now in the province of equal protection laws and equal access laws.  We have now been told that judges cannot have discretion, churches are not far behind.

"People will file lawsuits!" People file lawsuits over all kinds of shit.There are always lawsuits over churches' tax exempt status. They did not start because of gay marriage. The question is whether or not those lawsuits will succeed on the grand scale. In Canada, that sort of nonsense flies. In America, not so much (outside of the Ninth Circuit, that is).  It's an ineffective boogey man.

Really?  Do you want to stand by that?  Are you willing to donate $1000 to Ace if I can find a case in which a same-sex couple in the US successfully gets a state executive agency to rule that a church discriminated against them in refusing to use their facilities for a ceremony?

I am confident it will happen and quite soon.

It's just not a very good argument, sorry.

Will you put your money where your mouth is?

196

When women and racial minorities gained equal access to the institution, the institution didn't fundamentally change.

For women? Oh, yes it did.

The average gay couple is not at all interested in reworking marriage with the aim of weakening it. All they want is access to it as it exists, with all its strengths and burdens, privileges and penalties.

More stability for 3% of the population, less stability for 97%.  Which will have the greater impact?

Was this merely the easiest thing to oppose, because people know tightening divorce laws would be massively unpopular? Is it as simple as mere political cowardice and opportunism to express a general disdain for the direction of marriage over the past several decades?

I think you are on to something here. Not cowardice or malice toward gays but more like SSM will be the final straw....or that logically, if sex is not important in defining marriage, how is the number of people involved a defining characteristic ?

197

A few years back, someone on the Medved show (maybe Medved himself) explained it this way:

Marriage is between two people of the opposite sex.  Gays have the right to get married.  They just don't want to.

We're special, so one of the basic building blocks of civilization since forever has to be redefined to please us.

Don't think so.

198 Find me concrete cases of where Canadian-style religious infringement is upheld in the highest courts in America, and I'll start sending money to the defense.

Wow! Talk about moving goalposts. They've got to be concrete, and they've got to be the highest courts (and they can't include the Ninth Circuit), and it's even got to be Canadian-style. Otherwise, nothing to see.

Here's how I see it. You admit that men and women are different. Therefore, what you can do sexually with someone of your own sex is different from what you can do with someone of the opposite sex. And that doesn't apply only to mechanical questions of what goes where, but to the nature of relationships. A homosexual relationship is inherently different from a heterosexual one.

By using the same word to describe both, you are trying to deny that difference. For the sake of inclusiveness, you are giving legal force to a lie.

199 Find me concrete cases of where Canadian-style religious infringement is upheld in the highest courts in America, and I'll start sending money to the defense.

Robbie, will you send money to Ace?  It's much simpler.

200

It is now a Constitutional right.  We are now in the province of equal protection laws and equal access laws.  We have now been told that judges cannot have discretion, churches are not far behind.

Civil marriage has been the legal right of heterosexual couples for quite some time. The Catholic Church has yet to be forced to recognize marriages and divorces in church law. It often doesn't as a matter of course. I have personally witnessed, in my family, the refusal of church services and functions for marriage related matters when the Church did not deem the marriage valid. That's their right.

Really?  Do you want to stand by that?  Are you willing to donate $1000 to Ace if I can find a case in which a same-sex couple in the US successfully gets a state executive agency to rule that a church discriminated against them in refusing to use their facilities for a ceremony?

I'm a working class type, so I don't have $1000 to throw anywhere (not all us gays wallow in extravagance). But, sure, if a higher American court pulls a Canadian, I'll toss $100 at Ace. And it'd have to be a higher court. Think Circuit or the Supreme Court. The lower courts have too many nutters who will do just about anything to grind an ideological axe, conservative or liberal.

And to hamstring it just a bit more, it would have to be a private religious function. No public funds involved. In my view, once you're on the government dime, you forfeit your right to use that money in a discriminatory way. But as a religious organization, using private money, do whatever you please.

More stability for 3% of the population, less stability for 97%.  Which will have the greater impact?

How would it be less stable for the 97%? I always hear how gay marriage will erode straight marriages, but no one ever really explains, concretely, how that happens. Just amorphous arguments about potentials and possibilities and mighta's. Never "This will actually happen, and we have proof." And Stanley Kurtz doesn't count. He basically chronicled what socialism does to the family unit - not gay marriage. He confused his correlation and causation something awful.

201 Think Circuit or the Supreme Court. The lower courts have too many nutters who will do just about anything to grind an ideological axe, conservative or liberal.

Would a state agency equivalent to the EEOC be OK?

202 Where are your concrete explanations of how same-sex marriage will stabilize homosexual relationships? You want to monkey with the building blocks of society, the burden of proof is on you.

203 And, Robbie, surely Mr. Axelrod can devote more than $100 to Ace.  After all, you're going all out with dumping in absurd non-sequiturs like the horrors of conservatives judicial activism.

Plus, it ain't like you need to save money for an unexpected pregnancy.

204

Please ban that queer Honest Clof.  He has nothing to debate just the usual drive by smears one sees at the Daily Kos or DU.    Let him comment to his fellow trolls about the living constitution and majesty of the annointed.

 

As for the queers who wish to be married please explain why I shouldn't be able to marry eight consenting women or my adult son?   With queers its always the same, no demand is the last nor is it too extreme.  One has to wonder why the crave the approval of society if they are truly in love.  Just as  a man who loves his sheep needs society's recognition or NAMBLA.  Exactly how does such recognition impact on the institution of marriage?

If you have to ask the question you are beyond the hope of understanding.  I wonder why in the tens of thousands of years of society's establishment no society has institutionalized queer marriage.   I wonder why that is?  Our forebearers were an unenlightened and foolish lot weren't they?

 

Perez Hilton forver!

205 Meanwhile, what's the illegitemacy rate in this country? How many children are living with single parents? How many divorces? How many in foster care and adoption systems? I don't see hundreds and thousands of blog posts and message board threads and money combatting these things...

Go find the blog posts and message threads. I assure you they are there.

...I'll take pro-family advocates seriously when pro-family advocates seem even passingly serious about, well, families.

Fine, I'll take gay-rights activists seriously when gay-rights activists seem even passingly serious about the beheadings of accused homosexuals taking place in Iran.  See what I did there? Cute, huh?

In what way is my argument about same-sex marriage rendered bogus or dishonest by the fact that, it not being the topic under discussion, I said nothing about the harm done to the institution of marriage and by extension, society by the illegitimacy rate, the divorce rate etc.?

Note that this supposed ideal is barely being met by heterosexuals...

Well then we should really do away with ideals altogether then, shouldn't we?  Don't know where you find the motivation to argue for same-sex marriage though, in that case.


And for the record, my feelings about the well-being of children (thankfully) have little to do with my position on this issue.  I have it on good authority that my primary obstacle to mounting a successful campaign for local office is my refusal to give up the slogan: Save our Town! Screw the Children®!  But thanks for being so understanding and attributing to me a decent if misguided motive.

206

Where are your concrete explanations of how same-sex marriage will stabilize homosexual relationships? You want to monkey with the building blocks of society, the burden of proof is on you.

Actually, under classical liberalism, the onus is on you. Our system was built by our founders so that citizens should not have to defend their rights to the government. Rather, the government had to defend their restriction of rights to the people.

Marriage is a fundamental civil right. The government has a responsibility to answer to the people when it diminishes those rights. The people never have to apologize, fight for, or explain why they wish to exercise those rights granted by God.

It is interesting how gay marriage warps conservatism into this funhouse mirror version where the constitution is the opposite of what the founders intended, left-wing reactionism is upheld in the name of tradition, and extending stability is considered the most unstablizing force in society.

And, Robbie, surely Mr. Axelrod can devote more than $100 to Ace.  After all, you're going all out with dumping in absurd non-sequiturs like the horrors of conservatives judicial activism.

Amish, I've been commenting here on gay matters almost since this blog was created. Ace has put my stuff on the front page many times. I had a somewhat popular conservative gay blog for a number of years that was known for taking the left-wing gay establishment to task. I've defended conservatives and Republicans scores of times while excoriating the hypocrisy and fecklessness of Democrats and the Left. Hell, I've even defended the Catholic Church at great length. So, if you're suggesting I'm some kind of liberal plant, get bent.

And now, to mow the lawn, galloping liberal hedonist that I am.

207

Marriage is a fundamental civil right

And as such it has a definition. One man, one woman. Those rights that were recognised were defined and even those which you rightfully pointed out went unmentioned still had definitions. You want a new right, make a drive for constitutional amendments.

You won't because you know it is easier to get what you want by judicial fiat.

208

Opposition to changing the meaning of marriage is the same as / or is motivated by anti-gay bigotry.

Then I'm an anti-gay bigot.

Deal with it, intolerant people. You want me to tolerate you, tolerate my bigotry.

Let's have a gay shame parade.

Marriage is a fundamental civil right.

No it's not.

The government has a responsibility to answer to the people when it diminishes those rights.

It hasn't dimished anything, you never could marry someone of the same sex.

And it's not a right, anyway. You're not entitled to marry anyone. Marriage is not a damn right.

Why the bloody hell do some people think they have the right to get married?

I want to excercise my right. I don't have a partner, but dammit, I don't like being single or paying more taxes or not having enough sex. Procur me a spouse.

No other fundemental right is contingent upon the actions of OTHER people. I don't get freedom of speech ONLY if my audience likes me. I don't get to vote for whomever I want, only if the guy I'm voting for accepts it.

If I have a right to marriage, hitch me up bitches.

Now.

209 Marriage is a fundamental civil right. The government has a responsibility to answer to the people when it diminishes those rights. The people never have to apologize, fight for, or explain why they wish to exercise those rights granted by God.

I guess that the disagreement here then is that I'm thinking that children have a natural or at least a social (see James Madison) right to be raised by their natural mother and father which trumps the putative civil right of adults to marry whom (or what) they will.

210 I had a somewhat popular conservative gay blog for a number of years that was known for taking the left-wing gay establishment to task. I've defended conservatives and Republicans scores of times while excoriating the hypocrisy and fecklessness of Democrats and the Left.

OMG!  You're Andrew Sullivan!

Hell, I've even defended the Catholic Church at great length.

Oops, never mind.

So, if you're suggesting I'm some kind of liberal plant, get bent.

No, but you are cheap.  C'mon, you've been posting here "since this blog was created" so you can at least promise $250 for something that will never ever ever ever nu-uh never ever happen.

211 What right is the government restricting? You're the one asking the government to take an interest in homosexual relationships.

What right is the government diminishing? The right to marry a person of one's own sex never existed. How can it be diminished?

Maybe, for your arguments to make sense, you'd better begin by telling us what you think marriage is.

212 And, Robbie, surely Mr. Axelrod can devote more than $100 to Ace.  After all, you're going all out with dumping in absurd non-sequiturs like the horrors of conservatives judicial activism.

AmishDude, Robbie has been a commenter here for years and years. He may even pre-date my own start reading and commenting at the HQ.

I'm sure you guys can have your disagreement without accusing each other of bad faith.

213 I apologize, Gabe.  It's just that when I hear moral equivalence on judicial activism ("from the left and right") that's a big red flag.  If only, if only there were examples of conservative judicial activism I could criticize.  But alas they are so few and far between, it is impossible to cite sufficient numbers of them to convince lefties that I oppose judicial activism on principle.

I don't apologize for the wager, though.  I think in light of his being a frequent commenter, that a little donation isn't too much to ask, especially since no state agency will ever rule that a religious group violated discrimination laws in denying a same-sex ceremony.

214

It is interesting how gay marriage warps conservatism into this funhouse mirror version where the constitution is the opposite of what the founders intended,

Yes, I really don't know what the hell they were thinking when they wrote, in the constitution, that the people have a right to marry one another.

Oh, wait..

Well they wrote that you can't discriminate on the basis of hobbies.

Oh wait... no, protected classes were added by ammendment many a year later, and that's not even a protected class...

As someone pointed out, in the days of the founders you'd be convicted of first degree sodomy.

Yet somehow you're spinning this that you're the one representing original intent?

215

WHY is sexual proclivity so goddamn important?

You like to bugger dudes in the ass and somehow that has to be sacred.

OK, I like to play poker.

Cities and states all over the place go around banning gambling.

Why the hell is buggering dudes in the butt so much more important then playing cards for cash? Where's my protection for my hobbies?

I don't approve of banning homosexuality - what you do in the bedroom is between you and whoever you have tied up in there.

But where is my Poker Pride Parade? Where are my activists lobbying the supreme court for my fundemental right to go all in with a pair of 3s?

I can't even eat transfats, but somehow the fact that the government won't outright sanction your quite legal buttfuckery takes precendent?

Hey, fuck you. Whiner.

216 Entropy, that kind of language is not acceptable at the Ace of Fuzzy Bunnies Blog.

217 This is the down fall of America.

When will people take to the streets to save our country.


No civilization has EVER started with 2 dudes.  It's sick and disgusting!

Good bye America

218 No civilization has EVER started with 2 dudes.

Romulus and Remus?

219 Romulus and Remus?

Oh there you go bringing animals back into it!

Knock it off.  It's dehumanizing.

220 Whoa, that statue is much too anatomically precise.

221 I always thought that the sculptor got the look on her face just right.

222

Why the hell I am being denied legal access to hookers?

What gives? Sodomy is legal, but prostitution is NOT. WTF? Where are my prostitutes? Where's my bedroom privacy?

Where's my Whore Pride Parade? Where's my legion of callgirls calling fundies pimpaphobes?

We're all so very worried you can't married and get a government stamp of approval on your union, but I can't even get laid.

At least you're getting action. Seems to me I should take priority.

223 I'll vamoose now.  Too late to mow out here and it's raining and I own a townhouse anyway.

But somebody tell Robbie he should send Ace $100:
N.J. rules against church group in lesbian caseGroup was wrong not to rent out property for couple's civil union, state saysLink to MSNBC.  From Dec. 29, 2008.  There wasn't even marriage involved here.  This group was sanctioned for not permitting a civil union ceremony.

224

Entropy, are other people being allowed hookers but just not you? Or is prostitution illegal across the board?

225 Deety @ 194 -- If you expect an answer to that bogus straw man, you'll need your own lighter and ethanol.

226 tcbevo,

Obviously hookers are legal in some places and not others.
So I'll take this one for Entropy and answer "Uh, yeah dude."

227

Entropy, are other people being allowed hookers but just not you? Or is prostitution illegal across the board?

People in Nevada get hookers.

But that's not the point - does the government have any business in my bedroom or not?

And again you want to go with the equal for everybody crap.

Other people are getting married, I am not getting married. Who do I sue?

Your own argument here is one you rejected 5 threads up. Gays can marry, just not each other. Nor can anyone else marry someone of the same sex. Same sex marriage is illegal across the board, not just for gays.

Other people are getting laid the way they want to and can get laid. The government lets other people get laid they want they want to get laid.

But they don't let me. MY way of getting laid is illegal.

How is that equal?

228

Amish - I know about that case and knew the second you asked whether a department qualifies that you would cite it. I disagree with the state's decision, and would like to see how the Third Circuit rules.

If the Third Circuit upholds New Jersey's decision, then yup, I'll owe Ace some money. I fully expect them to overturn this, though.

Like I said, there are certainly loopy liberal officials out there who have no problem trampling over religious freedom. But it is not the policy of our country, and we have courts that consistently overturn such flagrant violations of the First Amendment.

229

Procedurally, they may or may not be denying me the same methodology as anyone else.

Fact is, federally, they are. Some people get prostitutes, I don't.

Locally, they aren't. Locally, where prostitutes are illegal, they're illegal for everyone.

But effectively, they're flat out denying me my ability and opportunity to get equitable results.

I do NOT enjoy equal ability to fornicate that other people do, because the government denies me the way I would prefer to fornicate. I could still do it the way other people do it, but I don't want to fornicate that way. They're forcing me to accept what THEY view as desirable sexual relationships, or otherwise none at all.

That's not equitable, since other people do get to do it the way they want and I can't.

Gays CAN marry people of the opposite sex, and get the same ceremony, the same legal effects, and the same certificate. They do not want to get married to someone of the opposite sex. They want what they see as an equitable resultant situation reflecting their own personal preferences, marriage to another of the same sex.

I want an equitable situation that reflects my sexual preference for no muss no fuss prostitution.

There's no asterisk on equality (of results).

230 Entropy, I'm not the government. I'm a citizen with a single vote. If more voters disagree with my vote then I will abide by their vote. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

231 Will you vote for (and argue for) legalized prostitution?

232

I want an equitable situation that reflects my sexual preference for no muss no fuss prostitution.

Go for it. That would probably be very popular in this political climate.

233

I have always held society can only exist if the people (mob, if you choose) says some things are okay, some not.  This has been throughout most time and places.  Polygamy and incest have not been accepted in most Judeo Christian society.  Homosexuality has been treated the same. 

Let's deal with incest among consenting adults.  First it does exist. Does that mean it is accepted? No.  There are generational health reasons to not promote or even condone it.  What if one or both parties agreed to be rendered sterile.  Now procreation and generationally defective offspring are no longer a problem.  Would society give its blessing on the union.  I think not. 

I intellectually do not care what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.  To me, being male and heterosexual, the act of homosexual sex between men is repulsive.  I interact and am friends with a few homosexuals.  It is easier to compartmentlize their sex life and ignore that which is repugnant to me. 

The left however continues to push to accept the behavior as normal and for the hetero community to accept , condone and celebrate it.  Bob, you may now kiss Bob, Mozel tof, ain't gonna fly.  This is simply creating greater animosity between the groups.  Knowing the hetero community will not accept this the courts interviene bypassing, societal norms and legislative systems.  These systems were devoloped to temper mob rule but, as they are representive, not to totally redefinesociety.  So, through the power of the judicial system, rights that do not exist  are created using words like "emanate from the penumbra."

No matter what courts decide, normal will always exist in the eye of the beholder.  People will always have prejudices.  Everyone has a line they say should not be crossed and they all are different. 

By the Catholic Church's standards, I have not been married to my wife for the last 33 years and I have two bastard children.  Not that I haven't wanted to call them that a few times.  Again, by Church law, my wife is still married to her first husband who beat her till her eyes were blackened and nose swelled.  Guess what, I don't agree with the church.  If your a guy and you love another guy, go do what you have to do.  Some will accepted it, some won't, but try to force everyone to accept it by demanding a right to marry.  You will just piss people off, many if not most will never accept it and you'll never feel normal in their eyes.  Besides, normal is over rated

234 Sex-Ed books should be a laugh riot.  And of course the Homo Mob will want to start early to overcome "Societal Prejudice".

235

But that's not the point - does the government have any business in my bedroom or not?

Only if harm is involved.

236 I said "quite in protest" just like any job if you are asked to do something not in keeping with your morals QUIT!  hell if you believe in yourself you can do what you are doing now or find something you love and make money at it! One door closes another opens! or you can be a pissant and let the government decide how you live your life! 

237 Not Quite,

So what are you thinking, a 2% "affirmative action" quota on adoptions?

238

Will you vote for (and argue for) legalized prostitution?

That's a tougher question for me because young people are more likely to be exploited there. There's a greater possibility of duress and unwillingness involved in prostitution than same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is what we were talking about, right?

239

Oh, I hope not.

It has become clear to me that I do not think the same way as others, or others as I.

240 Why are people so vehemently against this?

Why are people so vehemently for it, is the question any objective, learned person should be asking.

241

Other people are getting married, I am not getting married.

Neither am I. You know why? Cause I choose not to. Oh, yeah and it takes two to tango and I'm just one. Can I marry myself? (I'm sure there's a side of me that would say "I don't" and just ruin the whole wedding.)

242 I'll try to state it again:

Everybody who starts with the premise that the state has some control over marriage has already lost the argument. Get the state the hell out of marriage.

As stated in the punchline to the old joke: I know what type of society you are, now we're just haggling about the price.

243

Question.  A county recorder wouldn't be doing any ceremony, right?  He would only be issuing paper work, right?

I'll make my point when someone is able to answer.  Thanks

244

Why are people so vehemently for it, is the question any objective, learned person should be asking.

Sorry I didn't frame it the way you wanted. It's still the same question.

OK, why are some people so vehemently against same sex marriage and some people so vehemently for it? And why do some people seem indifferent?

(Better?)

245

OK, why are some people so vehemently against same sex marriage and some people so vehemently for it? And why do some people seem indifferent?

Because everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

246

Everybody who starts with the premise that the state has some control over marriage has already lost the argument. Get the state the hell out of marriage.

And take the wife too! (rim shot)

247

OK, why are some people so vehemently against same sex marriage and some people so vehemently for it? And why do some people seem indifferent?

Because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I agree one thousand one million percent.

248

Neither am I. You know why? Cause I choose not to.

You're grossly missing the point.

249

You're grossly missing the point.

You're grossly not making it.

Why be coy? I stated several times I wanted peoples honest opinion, not some political crap wrapped in legalese.  I gave my honest "equal rights" opinion and was ridiculed for it.  But I don't care, that's how I feel. Almost everything that was stated above against how I feel, I've thought of. I can argue with myself all the legal implications of same sex marriage, but in the end, I believe that homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights, freedoms and privileges as heterosexuals, including marriage. That's my opinion.

250 Why are people so vehemently against this? I just don't get it. I'm an independent that leans right, but I just don't understand the fierce opposition to gay marriage. Someone shed some light for me.

Posted by: tcbevo at April 26, 2009 11:12 AM (z4daD)

Here's some light for you..people aren't fiercely opposed to "gay marriage". They are fiecely opposed to the idea there is such a thing as "gay marriage". Why? Chiefly because there is no such thing. The mere fact that the noun marriage needs to be modified with the word gay to get anyone to even understand what is being presented shows this. If a man came up to me and said I just got married I might ask what his wife's name is. Why? Because marriage is a man and a woman, BY DEFINTION. Do we have leafy marriage? Do we have large, purple marriage? No we don't.

251 I can argue with myself all the legal implications of same sex marriage, but in the end, I believe that homosexuals are entitled to all the same rights, freedoms and privileges as heterosexuals, including marriage. That's my opinion.

Posted by: tcbevo at April 26, 2009 09:32 PM (z4daD)

Great. Now can you explain to me why, assuming marriage is the union of a man and woman ( which it is of coruse), anyone else should be forced call whatever the hell to people of the same sex are doing  marriage? Most especially the government?

252 Rocks, are you saying that homosexuals don't have the same rights, freedoms or privileges as heterosexuals? And if so, why?

253 Rocks, are you saying that homosexuals don't have the same rights, freedoms or privileges as heterosexuals? And if so, why?

No, I'm not. I know of no right, privilege or freedom based on who you have sex with and I don't really think there should be. I also don't see what that has to do with calling a same sex union marriage.

What I would like to know is why anyone is supposed to say 2 people of the same sex are married just because they say so? It isn't marriage so why should anyone be calling it that?

254

tcbevo:

 

Do you believe an adult and consenting child can have sex?  That a man and his son can marry?

 

Can you tell me how society benefits from queer marriage?  Do you then grant the right to a man who has 8 wives?   Or the father who wishes to marry his son?

 

Can you tell us how queers suffer from not having a recognized form of marriage?

Finally can you tell us why in your opinion homosexual marriage and its legal blessing by the state outweighs the collective wisdom and experience of humanity?

Somehow I think we'll all hear the crickets cripping or more nonsense bout the Founding Fathers fighting and dying for the right of Barney Frank and Perez Hilton to play house.

 

 

 

255

Find me concrete cases of where Canadian-style religious infringement is upheld in the highest courts in America, and I'll start sending money to the defense.

Besides the one mentioned above, does anyone remember which state a photographer got sued for not wanting to work at a gay wedding or function? Or the one where the owners of some park got sued for not wanting a civil union performed on their property?

 

Let's not forget that the Catholic Church stopped adoptions - in MA, was it  - because what gays want trumps what the Church believed, and studies have shown, to be the best situation for children. Under penalty of law. Me, me, me, me, me.

 

And the suits will just get more numerous. Intimidation, because you can't win any other way.

 

 

256 This all reminds me of a controversy involving my husband the minister and a church elder several years ago.  Hubby's answer is usually, "Let's see what the Bible says." to which the elder's response was, "we'll do your study, but regardless of what the Bible says, I still believe ...,"

257

You're grossly not making it.

I am. Your not engauging it.

Why be coy? I stated several times I wanted peoples honest opinion, not some political crap wrapped in legalese.  I gave my honest "equal rights" opinion and was ridiculed for it. 

I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to get you to think about what your saying. Examine the principles underlying your opinion.

You think people should have equal rights. But under your concept of what constitutes equal rights, wouldn't equal rights mean I get to hire prostitutes?

Don't diregard it. Make a logical argument rather then an emotional assertional based on your gut preference.

You get ridiculued for it because you don't engauge people's objections. You don't see them, or what, I don't know. But there issues with your assertion. You're entitled to your opinion, but opinion seems to be quite wrong.

In what way is marriage a right? Am I entitled to be married? And what matters - that I'm getting the same thing as everyone else or the same satisfaction as anyone else? If I'm not only entitled to be married but entitled to be married in a way that suits my preference for what marriage should be, where does that line stop, if anywhere?

If the government should let homosexuals marry people of the same sex, should it also let me gamble and buy hookers? What else can I do? Heroin? What else?

Don't argue the examples, argue the principles behind them. Think. Let's talk about what you think governing philosophy is here, not just what 1 man's whims are on a case by case basis.

258

You've told me, in response to my question, that 'it might be popular right now' and 'your just 1 man not government'. You don't engauge it.

Neither was an answer to my question. Do you support legalization of prostitution?

I'll even give you spoiler.

If you say yes, I'll push further, to see where the line is drawn (if there is one).

If you say no, and I've found a line, I'm going to want to know why it's wrong to impose someones moralistic preference in one scenario but not wrong for you to impose your own in another. What's the difference?

I want to know your operating principles that underlie your positions. I'm willing to bet, if I could get you to elucidate them, they're in direct contradiction with yourself, logically. Because based on the way you present your opinions, I don't think you've really ever stopped and thought that deeply, rationally, about these issues.

259 Much ado about nothing. 

I for one don't understand why it is that state governments are in the business of certifying marriages in the first place.  The concept of a marriage as a legal contract stems from its use among European aristocracy as a means to secure land and other holdings.  Prior to that, marriages were solely the domain of the church.  As usual, when the government gets involved in something, everything goes to hell.  Now we've got state governments not merely recording marriages, but actually claiming the right to veto a marriage.  A marriage is a contract and a promise between two people.  The state should be empowered to enforce a marriage contract, but it should not be able to declare a marriage invalid based upon the desires of external parties with no standing.  If my girlfriend and I want to get married, our neighbor shouldn't be able to stop us.  That is what it means to live in a free society.  I have rights regardless of how popular I am or how much power and money I have.  Only under tyranny must rights be ransomed. 

I think gay people are fucked in the head.  Something, somewhere went terribly wrong and their wires got crossed and stuck being attracted to members of their own sex.  I feel sorry for them and I'm glad I'm not one of them.  I'm thankful that my libido is focused on women.  I don't know what I'd do if I woke up one day and wanted to suck dick.  But just because they're messed up doesn't mean that they should be denied the chance at a happy life.  There are people with other birth defects and disabilities who lead long, happy and productive lives.  Being gay is not a moral issue any more than having cerebral palsy is.  The choices a gay person makes can and do have moral consequences  If they're promiscuous and engage in risky behaviors then the likelihood that they'll contract AIDS or some other disease goes up dramatically.  But the same is true of straight people also.  Gay or straight, a person can ruin their life by making bad choices.

Neither I nor anyone else has the right to tell a gay person that they can't have a life-long monogamous relationship with one of their own kind.  If they choose to commit to one another and be partners in life then that is their right as free adults.  They don't need my permission, or anyone else's, and were I to try and stop them then they would be well within their rights to defend their liberty by any mean necessary.

The government should get out of the marriage business.  The state should be entrusted with registering marriages between consenting adults, and enforcing the terms thereof, but it should not be in the business of deciding which marriages are allowable and which are not, except as defined by human rights law (i.e. a person cannot sign away their rights when they marry someone).  The power of the state exists solely to safeguard our rights, not to play favorites with who has them and who does not.

I will be so fucking glad when I don't have to hear any more bitching about gay marriage.  I'm sick of it.  I hate both sides in this war and wish they'd all drop off the face of the earth. 

260 The government should get out of the marriage business.  The state should be entrusted with registering marriages between consenting adults, and enforcing the terms thereof,

Posted by: Lee at April 27, 2009 12:31 AM (xOpTz)

How the hell can someone write two things so contradictory in the same sentence and not even notice they are doing it? It boggles the friggin mind, it really does.

How does the hell does the state "get out of the marriage business" yet still register marriages? What is the point of registering marriages if your intent is to get out of the business?

261 There is a big difference between recording marriages as entered into by consenting adults and playing favorites with which kinds of marriages will be allowed.  The government should be involved in the former and excluded from the latter.  That was my point.  It was the point that you read, understood, and sought to misrepresent.  The only thing worse than willful ignorance is intellectual dishonesty.

262

Besides the one mentioned above, does anyone remember which state a photographer got sued for not wanting to work at a gay wedding or function? Or the one where the owners of some park got sued for not wanting a civil union performed on their property?

Oh, people get sued for all sorts of things. What matters is whether or not these things are upheld as general public policy in our court system. That's a different kettle of fish. (The photographer, by the way, was slapped by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. Those bodies are generally populated by left-wing political appointees, so that probably wasn't too surprising. However, the case has been appealed to the federal courts on First Amendment grounds, and I expect a federal judge or three to beat the hell out of the state for this. Flatly put, I hope the photographer, once vindicated in federal court, sues like the wind).

Let's not forget that the Catholic Church stopped adoptions - in MA, was it  - because what gays want trumps what the Church believed, and studies have shown, to be the best situation for children. Under penalty of law. Me, me, me, me, me.

Apples and oranges. Catholic Charities partnered with the state to administer adoptions - something largely under the purview of government. Once religions entangle themselves with the government, whether or not they can discriminate becomes a massive gray area. What religious institutions do privately is one thing. Their rights are protected. However, the government has no business discriminating, and oftentimes cannot do so by law (as was the case in MA). It is the government's job to administer services and protections equally. If Catholic Charities could not partner with government and leave its biases at the door, it had no business being involved. It seems the organization reached the same conclusion and withdrew. While it's unfortunate that's the tack the charity took, I have no problem with the outcome. The Church decided their anti-gay prejudices were more important than the welfare of children.

I should note, however, that CC was granting some adoptions to gay couples. It was only once the fact was publicized and the Vatican got involved that suddenly gay parents weren't good enough. Apparently the leaders of CC Boston felt gay parents were just fine until people uninvolved, uninterested, and certainly not adopting those kids decided they knew what was best. And who suffered in the end? A bunch of children.

And to think people are proud of this shit. I mean, honestly. I cannot wait, in twenty or thirty years, to look back on this period and see all of this nonsense go down in the history books on the same page as segregationists. Because that is where all of this is going. I think even the anti-gay brigades are well aware of it. The clawing is always fiercest just before the death gasp, I suppose. Hell, Maggie Gallagher's full time job these days seems to be crying into her ideological beer. "My bigotry is becoming less socially acceptable over time. The world is unfair!" Yeah, innit.

263

Entropy:

 

So if I wish to murder or sell dope to minors that's okay?

 

Any society looks for stability, order and reason.  Excesses are no excuse.  Nor is permitting one thing the same as another.  Allowing a boxing match does not mean fights to the death should be permitted.   Excessive drinking has consequences on others who do not abuse the right.   Prostitution has been legalized and no doubt will be altered in the future.   But it does not follow that there isn't a reason for prohibitions on certain types of behavior. 

264

Sorry for being late to the party.

230 Entropy, I'm not the government. I'm a citizen with a single vote. If more voters disagree with my vote then I will abide by their vote. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Posted by: tcbevo at April 26, 2009 07:15 PM (z4daD)

So, then, what is your take on California's Prop 8? Not that I expect an answer at this late date...

265 tcbevo,
I'm not opposed to gay marriage.

I am, however, extremely opposed to the usurption of power. I think we will find ourselves in the position where our votes have little to no influence on the law of the land.

I don't understand why you, who repeatedly bring up the Constitution's importance, are OK with that.

266 There is a big difference between recording marriages as entered into by consenting adults and playing favorites with which kinds of marriages will be allowed.  The government should be involved in the former and excluded from the latter.  That was my point.  It was the point that you read, understood, and sought to misrepresent.  The only thing worse than willful ignorance is intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: Lee at April 27, 2009 02:06 AM (xOpTz)

So it sounds to me that you are totally in favor of the government being involved in the marriage business then right? I don't really see what was misrepresented here. On one hand you say "get the government out" on the other you say  record all marriages. They are contradictory ideas. You can't do both.

The only thing worse than willful ignorance is intellectual dishonesty.

The only thing worst than both of those is just plain ignorance.

267 Posted by: Robbie at April 27, 2009 02:31 AM (+D9QR)

You are completely wrong about adoptions. Like marriage it is something the state got involved in many, many years after private institutions and it has never been the mostly or the sole purview of the government. Most adiptions today are done bu private agencies. The government only largely became involved when you started having the government care for children. Even with that there are many criteria upon which even government run adoption agencies will discriminate against people, including race. Catholic Charities of MA would no more place a child with an unmarried couple than with a gay one but the state had no problem with this. Their stopping had everything to do with the state telling them what they must do and nothing to do with the Vatican. The issue was freedom of religious.

And to think people are proud of this shit. I mean, honestly. I cannot wait, in twenty or thirty years, to look back on this period and see all of this nonsense go down in the history books on the same page as segregationists. Because that is where all of this is going. I think even the anti-gay brigades are well aware of it. The clawing is always fiercest just before the death gasp, I suppose. Hell, Maggie Gallagher's full time job these days seems to be crying into her ideological beer. "My bigotry is becoming less socially acceptable over time. The world is unfair!" Yeah, innit.

Yeah, hows that abortion thing going? People are all just torn up over the idea they once tried to keep abortion from becoming legal. Comparing "gay rights" to civil rights, talk about apples to oranges. One is based on who you are, the other is based on what you do, that is apples to oranges.

268 Iowa - The Cockeye State

269 I mean, honestly. I cannot wait, in twenty or thirty years, to look back on this period and see all of this nonsense go down in the history books on the same page as segregationists. Because that is where all of this is going. I'd like to avoid giving birth to yet another Roe and Doe, or another Griswold, or another Brown v Board of Eduction. I thought the correct route was through votes by the people, but state courts have now ruled the people were voting on something they had no right to decide. For me it boils to down that fact I can't really prove I am straight, nor that I am gay, so if the state wants to make law on the premise of one or the other it requires additional powers I am unwilling to cede to them.

270

I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to get you to think about what your saying. Examine the principles underlying your opinion.

I know this is late but Entropy, I have examined the principles underlying my opinion. I simply believe that homosexuals should be allowed the same rights, freedoms and priveleges as heterosexuals.

271

tcbevo,
I'm not opposed to gay marriage.

I am, however, extremely opposed to the usurption of power. I think we will find ourselves in the position where our votes have little to no influence on the law of the land.

I don't understand why you, who repeatedly bring up the Constitution's importance, are OK with that.

I think I've stated several times I don't want legislation from the bench. Let the votes decide.

272

So, then, what is your take on California's Prop 8? Not that I expect an answer at this late date...

I support the vote.  And I don't want it over turned by the bench. I want these issues in the hands of the people.  Just because I'm for same sex marriage doesn't mean I'm against Democracy. I'm not a sore loser. I understand AND accept that the majority of the voters are against same sex marriage. I just disagree.

273 "On one hand you say "get the government out" on the other you say  record all marriages. They are contradictory ideas. You can't do both." -- Rocks @ 266

That is purposefully daft. I would have phrased it differently than Lee but you are either an unwitting idiot or intentionally obtuse.

I'll make the case in a broader context:
I don't want governments involved in partnership law. Partners should be able to define the terms by which they choose to enter a contractual agreement, less illegal purposes. Government should develop a system for those partners foolish enough to enter a contract without the foresight to produce an exit strategy. A liquidation of assets or an equitable distribution of property should suffice. Government should not be in the business of determining which partnerships are valid (once legality has been established) a priori.

Apply to marriage as appropriate.

274

I want to know your operating principles that underlie your positions. I'm willing to bet, if I could get you to elucidate them, they're in direct contradiction with yourself, logically. Because based on the way you present your opinions, I don't think you've really ever stopped and thought that deeply, rationally, about these issues.

Ok, so tell me how you would present my opinions so that they appeared more thought out "deeply" and "rationally".  That's just another convoluted way for you to say you think I'm stupid. I get it.

275 That is purposefully daft. I would have phrased it differently than Lee but you are either an unwitting idiot or intentionally obtuse.

I'll make the case in a broader context:
I don't want governments involved in partnership law. Partners should be able to define the terms by which they choose to enter a contractual agreement, less illegal purposes. Government should develop a system for those partners foolish enough to enter a contract without the foresight to produce an exit strategy. A liquidation of assets or an equitable distribution of property should suffice. Government should not be in the business of determining which partnerships are valid (once legality has been established) a priori.

Apply to marriage as appropriate.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 12:07 PM (fnU+z)

I'm obtuse? You don't want the government involved in partnership law....when only governments can make laws? But I am daft? How does the government effect this system you want for foolish partners without getting involved in Partnership Law?

I'll tell you how, they can't. It's as dumb as saying get the government out of marriage but register marriages.

Partners should be able to define the terms by which they choose to enter a contractual agreement, less illegal purposes.

Apply to marriage as appropriate.

Fine...then why wouldn't this be called a partnership? Why would the government call it marriage? What point would there be to the State calling it marriage?
If you and I formed a partnership and signed a contract but decided to call it a corporation is the government supposed to follow corporate law because we both think we are a corporation?

276 After refusing to hear their testimony, the court had the nerve to declare a whole list of facts were “undisputed.” Instead of listening to both sides and deciding impartially, the court lifted the “facts” directly from the brief of the same-sex “marriage” advocates.

How Iowa Happened.

277 Harry Reid is me...sockpuppet.

278 Harry Reid, cum Rocks,

So are you saying impartial judges are involved in any law they enforce, including contract law? Are you saying judges are now partners because they're involved in partnership law?

The state shouldn't call anything marriage. They shouldn't be in the marriage business. It's none of their damned business.

At least now I know you're not daft. Now I know you're incompetent.

Well played.

279 The state shouldn't call anything marriage. They shouldn't be in the marriage business. It's none of their damned business.

At least now I know you're not daft. Now I know you're incompetent.

Well played.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 01:26 PM (fnU+z)

Okay then.we agree. There is no real way for the government to "get out of the marriage business" and still do marriage. Which was the point I was making.

So are you saying impartial judges are involved in any law they enforce, including contract law? Are you saying judges are now partners because they're involved in partnership law?

Where did the laws the judges are enforcing come from? Is it solely from the partners themselves as stated in the contract? Or did some legislators pass them? Are legislators part of the contract? 

Marriage should be  contract right? All contracts can have a set time they end if the signers agree correct? Then it's good news for Entropy because he can get laid. All he would need to do is contract with a woman to be his spouse for a few hours...in return for his material support of course. Congrats Entropy!

280 What's with the slurs?  

They do not help. 

281 No, you fucking moron. Government isn't in the business of small Italian pastry shops but if the fucking partners decide they want to go splitsville, government provides the rules by which the breakup happens.

They're the fucking referees.

Are you saying the referees are involved in playing football? Are the referees involved in playing basketball? You're a fucking retard on this issue. And I simply can't do anything more than laugh at your ignorance.

Moron. And not in the good way.

282 And just to be enormously clear:

Government should be involved in setting the rules by which partnerships are dissolved if the partners have not previously agreed.

But government is not (in the case business) and should not (in the case of marriage) be involved in forming partnerships.

It's none of their damned business.

283 Take home exam for dumb as(s) rocks:

When did states officially become involved in marriages -- excepting divorce laws?

If you answered "during the eugenics movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s" then you win a prize. Any other answer is incorrect.

If government can't be extracted from private unions, were all people before those dates unmarried?

If you answered "yes" then you should begin to see that government does not have to be involved in marriage. If you answered "no" then you remain a dishonest idiot.

Why do you assume government must be involved? And if you count yourself conservative, don't you understand that you've conceded to government entry into your personal life by making the incredibly weak argument you have forwarded above?

284 No, you fucking moron. Government isn't in the business of small Italian pastry shops but if the fucking partners decide they want to go splitsville, government provides the rules by which the breakup happens.

They're the fucking referees.

Are you saying the referees are involved in playing football? Are the referees involved in playing basketball? You're a fucking retard on this issue. And I simply can't do anything more than laugh at your ignorance.

Moron. And not in the good way.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 03:37 PM (fnU+z)

First off what the hell is up with the insults? Have I insulted you? You're still wrong no matter how many times you call me a moron.

Are there Laws regarding Partnerships? Yes. Are there laws which would make a partnership invalid? Yes. Then the government is involved in parterships, end of friggin story.

285 And just to be enormously clear:

Government should be involved in setting the rules by which partnerships are dissolved if the partners have not previously agreed.

But government is not (in the case business) and should not (in the case of marriage) be involved in forming partnerships.

It's none of their damned business.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 03:41 PM (fnU+z)

 That's a nice sentiment but it has nothing to do with reality. Government is involved in both simply by having laws which relate to them.

286 Take home exam for dumb as(s) rocks:

When did states officially become involved in marriages -- excepting divorce laws?

If you answered "during the eugenics movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s" then you win a prize. Any other answer is incorrect.

Yes, I know. I have stated the same a number of times before myself in other threads Gabe has put up and in this fucking thread at 267. Who needs an exam now?. Do you even bother to read the  comments you are commenting on?

If government can't be extracted from private unions, were all people before those dates unmarried?

If you answered "yes" then you should begin to see that government does not have to be involved in marriage. If you answered "no" then you remain a dishonest idiot.


Why do you assume government must be involved? And if you count yourself conservative, don't you understand that you've conceded to government entry into your personal life by making the incredibly weak argument you have forwarded above?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 03:47 PM (fnU+z)

Okay now I can officially call you a moron. Find me one post where I stated or even suggested the government  HAS to be involved in marriage? One. When you can't  you better fucking post an apology here. 

I certainly suggested the government should not be calling a union which is not a man and a woman marriage, because it isn't by definition. Any more than a partnership is a corporation.

I have no idea why the hell you even commented at all. You are completely wrong about every point you have made. I responded to another person's post that the government can't "register" marriages AND "get out of the marriage business" and you go off on some  rant.   I will say the same thing:

How does the hell does the state "get out of the marriage business" yet still register marriages? What is the point of registering marriages if your intent is to get out of the business?

States didn't issue Birth Certificates regularly till well into the 20th century. Why did they start? Because they passed laws relating to children. There is absolutely no point to registering marriages if the government has no interest, as in laws, relating to marriage. The States register marriage and births because they have inserted themselves into the administration of both. The very act of the state requiring people to register something is getting the government involved in it. You and I can decide to become pen pals and setup rules which state we each much write once a week. Does the government require us to register our pen pal pack? No they don't because the government could gives a rats ass about it. There are no laws which pertain to it.

I'll say it again. You can't get out of the business of something and then pass laws relating to that business. The 2 things are mutually contradictory.

287 "The States register marriage and births because they have inserted themselves into the administration of both."

Bravo. You have now issued a self-fulfilling argument. Wonderful work.

Again you presuppose that governments must be involved in marriage and then say government therefore can't get out of the business of marriage. Nothing like assuming the antecedent to prove your argument.

And then, whammo presto you have made it impossible for government not to be involved in all sorts of places where they have no fucking business.

I get it now. You're not a conservative.

And you're a fucking idiot to boot. Kudos.

288 "pen pals"

Under the ICC, postal rules or interstate telecom laws the federal government could argue that pen pals must be registered. They could argue "protection of children" to stop sexual predators and they've got their rational basis.

After they state must register with the federal government, by your argument, anybody who then advocates for the pen pal registry to be repealed because the federal government has no business in that area of private life would hear:

"States didn't issue pen pal registries regularly till well into the 21st century. Why did they start? Because they passed laws relating to children. There is absolutely no point to registering pen pals if the government has no interest, as in laws, relating to pen pals."

And ever does the power of the state expand.

You're a worthless frakking big government piece of poo.

289 After they state you must register...

290 Under the ICC, postal rules or interstate telecom laws the federal government could argue that pen pals must be registered. They could argue "protection of children" to stop sexual predators and they've got their rational basis.

You are right, they could. If they did you know what? The government would be in the pen pal business. They couldn't get out of that business unless those laws were repealed. Only a moron to suggest the government wasn't.

Again we agree.

And ever does the power of the state expand.

And where did I ever suggest it should?

You're a worthless frakking big government piece of poo.

Poo the right word because you just keep piling higher and higher.

Did you find a post where I suggested I was for the government expanding and registering things? No? Did you read post 267 where I make the exact same point you made in suggesting I was a moron. Yes? I didn't see any apology.

291 Again you presuppose that governments must be involved in marriage and then say government therefore can't get out of the business of marriage. Nothing like assuming the antecedent to prove your argument.

And you're a fucking idiot to boot. Kudos.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 09:15 PM (fnU+z)

Point to one damn post where I suggested this. One. I never suggested this. Never.

My point is you can't get the government out of the business of marriage and say the government should register them. Registering marriages makes the government involved.

292 You think the government must stay in the business of marriage.

You prefer that result from soup to nuts.

It's a sad state of affairs, really, that you encourage the expansion of the federal government into (and discourage its recession from) places it doesn't belong.

293 And where, you moronic imbecile, did I suggest the government should have any law respecting marriage?

Just one time you dumb shit?

(In order to be helpful, I think you think I'm Lee from above. HINT: I'm not.)

Dumb fuck.

294 You think the government must stay in the business of marriage.

You prefer that result from soup to nuts.

It's a sad state of affairs, really, that you encourage the expansion of the federal government into (and discourage its recession from) places it doesn't belong.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 09:45 PM (fnU+z)

Point to one comment on this blog where I have suggested this.

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest this is true so why do you continue to try to suggest it is?

Instead it is you, and Lee, who are defending the idea that the government should be registering marriages but yet somehow magically not be involved in marriage.

You are the one who has defended the idea the state should register marriages.

295 And where, you moronic imbecile, did I suggest the government should have any law respecting marriage?

Just one time you dumb shit?

(In order to be helpful, I think you think I'm Lee from above. HINT: I'm not.)

Dumb fuck.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 09:50 PM (fnU+z)

I know you aren't, but you certainly defended his idea that the government can register marriages but yet get out of the marriage business.

273 "On one hand you say "get the government out" on the other you say  record all marriages. They are contradictory ideas. You can't do both." -- Rocks @ 266

That is purposefully daft. I would have phrased it differently than Lee but you are either an unwitting idiot or intentionally obtuse.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 12:07 PM (fnU+z)

You said you would phrase it differently but you suggested you agree with Lee.

By "phrase it differently" did you actually mean disagree with him concerning registering marriages and getting the government out of the marriage business? Because not agreeing and not phrasing it the same aren't the same things. I think most people would agree with that.

One more thing. Stop the insults.

296 Frak you, idiot. I'll be as insulting of a jack ass simpleton as I want.

You're really a complete imbecile, aren't you? Your arguments are for shit (See, e.g. the pen pal comment) and your responses are pedestrian and boring. If not for the insults, I wouldn't keep coming back here to call you out for your pro-big-government stance w/rt marriage. You're in favor. Fine but that means  you've conceded the intellectual high ground to the Democrats and other assorted Leftists. No shame in that, unless you think you're a conservative.

And I can go to the clerk of the court to register nearly anything. Seriously, you try it tomorrow. They'll take your fee and process the hell out of your turtle's name. But the government isn't in the farking turtle business, now is it?

And the government isn't in the partnership business either. The only thing about which they care w/rt partnerships is the dissolution. Other general laws (like illegality) apply without concern for the business form. Government is in the business of keeping the peace -- one of the few duties it is specifically charged with performing -- and disputes about property dispersal would as a matter of course upset that peace. Therefore, the government is in the business of partnerships only to the extent that partnerships dissolve (barring illegality).

So let me give you an example about which you might be able to wrap your small brain:
A couple is involved in a domestic dispute.
The police arrive and separate the parties.
Without respect to marriage the laws that might apply are generally enforceable.

If the parties are married, would you say this is a law about marriage? Of course not. It's a law about keeping the peace and marriage didn't matter.

Thus, as you can see, all sorts of laws could affect married people without the government insinuating itself where it doesn't belong.

OK, now I feel sorry for you. I've just now realized that your understanding of these matters is limited. I really did need to spell it out for you in detail, didn't I?

297 Frak you, idiot. I'll be as insulting of a jack ass simpleton as I want.

Fine, I'm sure this kind of stuff is exactly what Ace had in mind when he posted about dialing things back a bit. Even without that I'm sure Ace wants his blog to be known as the one where one person can go on swearing and insulting people for psot after post after post. But I think you got that or you wouldn't have switched to frak and fark instead of fuck now would you?

You're really a complete imbecile, aren't you? Your arguments are for shit (See, e.g. the pen pal comment) and your responses are pedestrian and boring. If not for the insults, I wouldn't keep coming back here to call you out for your pro-big-government stance w/rt marriage. You're in favor. Fine but that means  you've conceded the intellectual high ground to the Democrats and other assorted Leftists. No shame in that, unless you think you're a conservative.

Again, point out one post on this entire blog where I have ever suggested such a thing. You can't because there isn't one. You owe me an apology.

And I can go to the clerk of the court to register nearly anything. Seriously, you try it tomorrow. They'll take your fee and process the hell out of your turtle's name. But the government isn't in the farking turtle business, now is it?

No, you can't refister anything. they'll register you pet. Why? because they have animal protection laws. The government is in the animal prtection business, including your pet turtle.

And the government isn't in the partnership business either. The only thing about which they care w/rt partnerships is the dissolution. Other general laws (like illegality) apply without concern for the business form. Government is in the business of keeping the peace -- one of the few duties it is specifically charged with performing -- and disputes about property dispersal would as a matter of course upset that peace. Therefore, the government is in the business of partnerships only to the extent that partnerships dissolve (barring illegality).

So all partnerships are valid until dissolution then? There are no laws which would render a partnership invalid? Or is there since your are " (barring illegality)"?

A couple is involved in a domestic dispute.
The police arrive and separate the parties.
Without respect to marriage the laws that might apply are generally enforceable.

If the parties are married, would you say this is a law about marriage? Of course not. It's a law about keeping the peace and marriage didn't matter.

Thus, as you can see, all sorts of laws could affect married people without the government insinuating itself where it doesn't belong.

Yes, there is all sorts. Did I suggest there wasn't? Are there none which only pertain to marriage? Why would a marriage need to be registered to effect the outcome you describe in your example?

OK, now I feel sorry for you. I've just now realized that your understanding of these matters is limited. I really did need to spell it out for you in detail, didn't I?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 10:27 PM (fnU+z)

Yes, you were quite detailed. Wrong still, but detailed.

298 I owe you an apology because the only logical conclusion based on your "the government is in the business of marriage and it's never leaving so suck it" logic is that you support that end. I'll apologize as soon as you recognize you're in favor of government intervention.

And now I see you're in favor of not using apostrophes where appropriate in addition to thinking the government has an interest in my pet turtle. (PSST. I could eat the turtle if I wanted to do so.) Fish too I suppose. So are you now an avowed vegan because the government will register the name of any pet -- including fish?

So, you just don't wish to see the rules of general versus specific applicability. I now see that you're a retard. I'm sorry for picking on you. Careful to put your helmet on before playing in the back yard. You are purposefully obtuse, as I initially stated.

"Why would a marriage need to be registered to effect the outcome you describe in your example?"

You almost conceded my point. Did you even notice? I'll bet you're too smug to recognize that what you typed was exactly according to my point. Government should get out of the business of marriage. But if you want to register your fish or your marriage, feel free.

Oh, and fuck off. Shit stain. I've been posting here more than six years. I use silly words like frak because it's cutesy. I do it because it pleases me. Know what? Frak your mother.

299 No, you owe me an apology for 2 things.

One is for calling me a moron in a comment on here  using the very same point I had used in an earlier post. It's pretty moronic to try to impugn someones intelligence by agreeing with them wouldn't you say?

Second is for suggesting that 'the only logical conclusion based on your "the government is in the business of marriage and it's never leaving so suck it" logic is that you support that end.' without any evidence, because there clearly isn't any . I never suggested it so there isn't any way to logical conclude I did. You wish that to be what I suggested and what I'm arguing about because you clearly don't have a friggin leg to stand on any longer and you are looking to save face, but that doesn't make it true.

If we are going to go much further than this though could you say when you are chagning things? I've gone from saying the government must register marriages......to being a big government liberal...to saying that "the government is in the business of marriage and it's never leaving so suck it".  Despite never having said or suggested anything of the sort. What's next?

And now I see you're in favor of not using apostrophes where appropriate in addition to thinking the government has an interest in my pet turtle. (PSST. I could eat the turtle if I wanted to do so.) Fish too I suppose. So are you now an avowed vegan because the government will register the name of any pet -- including fish?

If it was legal to kill the animal they wouldn't register it. There would be no point.
I didn't use apostrophes because I usually italicize what I am quoting from another post. Forgot to do that, typed to quickly. Can you not recognize your own comments? Also, how does one leap to someone being an avowed vegan from what I said? Perhaps the same one one leaps to the assumption that someone thinks "the government is in the business of marriage and it's never leaving so suck it" when there is no evidence to suggest that's true.

You almost conceded my point. Did you even notice? I'll bet you're too smug to recognize that what you typed was exactly according to my point. Government should get out of the business of marriage.

Good, government should get out of the business of marriage. All marriage laws go , ALL or the government is still in the marriage business. The state will only do partnerships,  just they won't call them marriage because they aren't and the state isn't in the marriage business any longer. Why would the government then register marriages? 

What that the point you were making and arguing about? That wasn't the point you made in agreeing with Lee. The only point I was ever arguing with was the one which suggests the government can register marriages and yet not be in the marriage business. States register things so they can regulate it. Registration itself IS a regulation.

Oh, and fuck off. Shit stain. I've been posting here more than six years. I use silly words like frak because it's cutesy. I do it because it pleases me. Know what? Frak your mother.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 27, 2009 11:54 PM (fnU+z)

Congratulations. Are you regularly this offensive and obstinate? I have never noticed it before. Generally people like that get banned.

300 Oh and by the way. There is nothing at all stopping the government from taking every marriage laws off the books. Not only am I not arguing that now, I have made that same point in earlier posts by Gabe on this subject.

301 So you're still too much an idiot to recognize the logical conclusions of what you did write.

I respect that.

Not just anybody can accomplish that level of stupidity.

302 So you're still too much an idiot to recognize the logical conclusions of what you did write.

I respect that.

Not just anybody can accomplish that level of stupidity.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 28, 2009 12:08 PM (fnU+z)

Is this supposed to be self reflective or something, like therapy?

Are you going to point to a post I made that supports your "logical conclusions"?

One which I state what you say rather then what you think I said?

I mean what is the problem here? It should be easy according to you.

Maybe you can bring up partnerships again and show to show how the government isn't involved in them and we'll just ignore the Uniform Partnership Act and it's variants.

Or maybe you can suggest again that the government registering something is evidence of the government not being involved in it. 

Or maybe you can point put how the fire department will report a married man for arson for burning his house down is evidence that there are laws which don't relate to marriage.

303 Alright clown. You can't be helped. Enjoy your ever more intrusive government.

My position: Government out of marriage.

Your position: Lee said something and that's that.

My position: Government out of marriage.

Your position: Government can't get out of marriage.

My position: You support the position that government can't get out of marriage. This means you support government intrusion into all sorts of areas where it doesn't belong. Your position supports a bigger government.

Your position: I didn't say the thing that you claim. Sure, it's the logical conclusion of my position that government must stay involved in marriage. But I never typed those exact words.

My position: Insults are the only thing that are useful for a dumb ass like you. You're a cheap date but you use too much teeth. Li'l bitch.

304 Alright clown. You can't be helped. Enjoy your ever more intrusive government.

Start of argument: You agree with Lee and attack me for saying the government can't both register marriages  AND get out of the marriage business. This was an is the sole point of argument despite numerous attempts by you to drag it far afield.

My position: Government out of marriage.
 
Your position: Lee said something and that's that.

So, as I stated earlier, you agree with me that Lee was wrong?
And you would agree that "government out of marriage" includes not registering them?

My position: Government out of marriage.

Your position: Government can't get out of marriage.

But yet you not only are unable to point to a post where I said this and I have already stated the government can get out of marriage in this thread.

My position: You support the position that government can't get out of marriage. This means you support government intrusion into all sorts of areas where it doesn't belong. Your position supports a bigger government.

Your position: I didn't say the thing that you claim. Sure, it's the logical conclusion of my position that government must stay involved in marriage. But I never typed those exact words.

I do not agree it's logical, because it isn't logical, and I have never said anything like it or suggested it. If this is true where is the post which says or suggest what you maintain  my "position" is? Do you know why this is so? Because I do not support the position that government can't get out of marriage. Nor do I support government intrusion. So I have no clue why you would suggest I do.

My position: Insults are the only thing that are useful for a dumb ass like you. You're a cheap date but you use too much teeth. Li'l bitch.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 28, 2009 01:53 PM (fnU+z)

You forgot my position here: The fact that you have nothing left but insults and attempting to rephrase my position pretty much proves you have no argument left and are obstinate and offensive and should probably have been banned long ago.

305 Well get out your ban hammer, internet tough guy.

Enjoy your larger government that just can't get out of marriage and all sorts of other places.

306 Enjoy your larger government that just can't get out of marriage and all sorts of other places.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 29, 2009 02:23 PM (fnU+z)

Outside of your own imagination are you going to point to something I've said that suggests this is what I want? You can even flat out ignore the posts where I specifically say that isn't what I want. Of course my saying that isn't what I want is pretty strong evidence that isn't true but you obviously need all the help you can get here.

It's pretty obvious what happened here. Lee put out a pretty poorly thought out postion which was the government should do everything it's doing now with regards to marriages except determining what is a marriage and calling that getting the "government out of marriage".   It would be like suggesting the state isn't invloved in education because everyone is allowed to go to school. It's flat out wrong and contradictory. Why you chose to defend it is beyond me. To go on to insult me and  do it while attempting to prove me wrong using the very point I myself had made earlier in the thread is as mind boggling as Lee's original comment.

What you both mean is the current laws dealing with marriage should be adjusted to allow "gay marriage". That's fine if that's what you believe but that is not getting "the government out of marriage".

If anyone here is advocating   "larger government that just can't get out of marriage and all sorts of other places." it is Lee and yourself, not me.

Getting the government out of marriage means removing the laws pertaining to marriage and with it the government's influence, not expanding them to cover more unions which aren't marriage to begin with.

As far as the ban hammer I'll leave that to Ace et al. If he wants an offensive, obstinate fool, who thinks he's some kind of troll police trawling the threads ala LGF,  clogging up his blog with insults and idiotic arguments that's his business. As long as I'm free to point it out I'm perfectly happy. In the future though I would suggest you  take the time to read all the comments first before going off half cocked.

307 No, jack hole.

I want government out of marriage in all its forms.
Why are you so confused on that point when I've typed it several times?

No joint tax returns for married people (and no marriage penalty).
No laws that regard marriage period.

You think government ought to be involved in marriage.
It's the only logical conclusion if you don't think government should remove itself from marriage altogether.
Fine.

But whether you admit that means you think government has a place in marriage doesn't change the fact you support government intervention in marriage.

308 Now I get your enthusiasm, however.
You think I support gay marriage.
HAHAHAHA!

So that's what this is all about?

You're not very bright.

309 I want government out of marriage in all its forms.
Why are you so confused on that point when I've typed it several times?

No joint tax returns for married people (and no marriage penalty).
No laws that regard marriage period.

Then why are you suggesting marriages should be registered?
If you aren't why did you ever defend Lee's suggestion that they should be?


You think government ought to be involved in marriage.
It's the only logical conclusion if you don't think government should remove itself from marriage altogether.
Fine.

Again, logic implies evidence, produce it. Why do you keep repeating this when you can't point to a post where I suggest this is ludicrous.

But whether you admit that means you think government has a place in marriage doesn't change the fact you support government intervention in marriage.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 30, 2009 09:00 PM (fnU+z)

Is  this fact part of your logical conclusion? Again evidence?

Where is your evidence that I think the government should have a place in or intervene in marriage?

310 Now I get your enthusiasm, however.
You think I support gay marriage.
HAHAHAHA!

So that's what this is all about?

You're not very bright.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 30, 2009 09:01 PM (fnU+z)

No, what this is all about is:

Lee put out a pretty poorly thought out position which was the government should do everything it's doing now with regards to marriages except determining what is a marriage and calling that getting the "government out of marriage" and you defended it.

The only person not very bright here is you  because you spent an awful long time and energy trying to defend a point which you are now apparently claiming you never agreed with.

Do you or do you not agree with  Lee when he stated that the government can both register and "get out of" marriage?

If you truly want:

I want government out of marriage in all its forms.
No joint tax returns for married people (and no marriage penalty).
No laws that regard marriage period.

as you just stated then that is totally incompatible with anything Lee suggested and you were just being offensive and obstinate in ever agreeing with him and even entering the argument. It also doesn't make Lee, or you in defending him, any less wrong about the original point.

There is no way for the government to both register marriages and "get out of the marriage business". It was wrong when Lee said it, it was wrong with every lame ass example and argument you put out in defending it, and it's wrong now.

311 People should not be forced to register their marriages with the state.
If, as with the registration of a fish's name, they wish to register with the state I have no problem.

Isn't it odd that you ask for evidence that your logical conclusions are that the state must remain involved in marriage (given your disagreement with my only point that government should get out of the business of marriage) but offer no evidence whatsoever for your contention that I agreed with something I didn't write and didn't defend?

Oh, I suppose not for you.
You think I support gay marriage and that's that with that, eh?

312 Oh, and you're a fucking idiot.

313 registry cleaners

314 Isn't it odd that you ask for evidence that your logical conclusions are that the state must remain involved in marriage (given your disagreement with my only point that government should get out of the business of marriage) but offer no evidence whatsoever for your contention that I agreed with something I didn't write and didn't defend?

I ask for evidence because there is no point in the thread where you can point where it suggests that I disagree with getting the government out of the marriage business. Why you keep repeating this is absolutely senseless. And I did offer evidence you agree with Lee, you flat out said you did but would simply phrase it differently. I even quoted your own words.

You say you are for decreasing the government but yet have no problem with the costs for people registering their marriages just because they wish too. Why should the we as tax payers foot the bill for that? The employees and cost of maintaining the records.

Oh, I suppose not for you.
You think I support gay marriage and that's that with that, eh?

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 04, 2009 04:10 PM (fnU+z)

You certainly aren't against letting two sex sex partners register their union as a marriage. You just said so.

315 Oh, and you're a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 04, 2009 04:11 PM (fnU+z)

Still no arugument eh?

316 Rocks,
So you're still coming here? Cool.

I see you're just not down with gays; fine.
I hope you're happy and all that.

To think all you had to say was "I don't want gays getting married and I'm willing to use the power of the state to make it so" and we could have had this discussion in one post.
You don't want the government out of marriage because you want to keep gays out of marriage.

That's solid; it's unprincipled but at least you finally got around to typing what you meant.

317 So you're still coming here? Cool.

I see you're just not down with gays; fine.
I hope you're happy and all that.

To think all you had to say was "I don't want gays getting married and I'm willing to use the power of the state to make it so" and we could have had this discussion in one post.
You don't want the government out of marriage because you want to keep gays out of marriage.

That's solid; it's unprincipled but at least you finally got around to typing what you meant.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 07, 2009 08:37 PM (fnU+z)

Yep, still coming.

I noticed you keep avoiding the subject. Are you going to make an argument or point to a some evidence that supports what this latest thing you've trotted out to avoid addressing how wrong you were?

"I don't want gays getting married and I'm willing to use the power of the state to make it so"

I wouldn't say this because it isn't what I meant. If you had actually bothered to read my posts you would already know that a same sex union isn't marriage. I don't want the government or anybody else redefining marriage. If the government stops doing anything with marriage then so be it. But they shouldn't call something that isn't marriage, marriage. Any more than the government should start calling copper gold.

As far as finally getting around to saying that I said it a number of times in this thread and in practically every other one on this subject. If you can't be bothered to read the posts in a thread before commenting and attacking people that's your business. But it doesn't excuse you being wrong.

318 Dude,
It's cool. You're not down with gays getting married. Was that so hard to type? You thought, wrongly, that I care about gay marriage one way or the other.

All I care to do is have less government. If we can have less government we'll all be better for the exchange.

Somehow, you just don't cotton to that idea. I get it. You're for using the coercive power of the state to enforce your point of view. How's that working for you? Are you getting the state to listen or are they doing things you don't like? If you're losing (and you are) and you're getting things you don't like (and you are) then you really ought to favor less government.

Fight the good fight. Continue losing. And hopefully God will reward you in the afterlife. As for me, I'd prefer less government right now.

And why do you keep quoting everything I typed? Are you really that big a fan? I'm flattered but it's a little stupid. Well. Never mind. You are a bit stupid, after all.

319 And why do you keep quoting everything I typed?

Unlike you I read what I intend to comment on. I quote it so people understand what I am addressing directly. It also keeps me from going off point and also to keep from doing something so moronic as to actually make the same point as the person I am arguing with and then call them stupid. I wish I could say you were simply going off point here but this whole "coercive power of the state" is obviously your latest lame ass attempt to divert from the fact that you still can't back up anything you are claiming about me and you were wrong as hell to comment.

Do you or do you not agree with Lee that the government can both "get out of marriage" AND register marriages? Yes or No? It's not a hard question.
You said you did so forgive me for assuming that actually meant you did.

I really don't care if you "care" about "gay marriage". 

All I care to do is have less government. If we can have less government we'll all be better for the exchange.

Then why would you ever suggest the state register marriages?

You are a bit stupid, after all.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at May 09, 2009 07:33 PM (fnU+z)

A bit stupid? That's it? I guess that's an improvement over an "unwitting idiot or intentionally obtuse" and "moron" but insults still aren't a substitute for an argument.

320 Government can offer a marriage registry in the same way they can offer a pet's name registry for fish.

That doesn't affect individual freedom.

You wish to keep the government involved in the business of marriage.
That is your prerogative.
So long as you recognize the loss of freedom and are happy about it, fare thee well.
I hope the shackles fit you snuggly.

I keep using different insults until one finally slips into your reading level.
You're obviously a brain damaged nincompoop without the good sense God gave a gerbil.

321 Government can offer a marriage registry in the same way they can offer a pet's name registry for fish.

Okay, I'll ask again. Why should the taxpayer be paying for employees, buildings, etc to register and archive such information? How is this remotely compatible with smaller government and less taxes? What is the purpose of offering this and why should the taxpayer foot the bill? Even meaningless registration is not "getting the government out of marriage". You know what getting the government out of marriage is? Not registering marriages. Which is why it was idiotic when Lee suggested doing this and moronic for you to attempt to defend it.

That doesn't affect individual freedom.

It doesn't? Who's paying for all this useless registering?

Days later and I don't know how many posts and we are back to the same place and I'm just as right now as the the first time I said it:

"On one hand you say "get the government out" on the other you say  record all marriages. They are contradictory ideas. You can't do both."

You wish to keep the government involved in the business of marriage.

I do? You're the one suggesting registering things for no apparent reason.You wish this was about that, which you still haven't bothered to show any evidence of,  instead of how spectacularly wrong you have been with every single post. You can babble on 1000 times about what you think I want or don't want, it's not relevent and it doesn't have a thing to do with whether you can "get the government out of marriage" and still register them.

322 Taxpayers don't foot bills for registries really, really smart guy.
The fees people choose to pay do.
(Are you allowed on the internet by yourself? Do your parents know?)

Why do you think the power of the state should be used to enforce your preferred policy? Are you winning any of those battles?

323 Taxpayers don't foot bills for registries really, really smart guy.
The fees people choose to pay do.

Talk about naive...and the DMV pays for itself I suppose?
What difference does it make anyway? Is the government supposed to be in the business of making people feel good now by registering their stuff?

How do you resolve that with this?

"All I care to do is have less government. If we can have less government we'll all be better for the exchange."

Why do you think the power of the state should be used to enforce your preferred policy? Are you winning any of those battles?

Why do you think this is relevant? What difference does it make what policy you or I prefer have to the point? It has none. Who cares? Both of us could think whatever we want. You still won't be able to logically say the government can get out of marriage AND registers marriages. So, you are still wrong and still owe me an apology for trying to call me moronic by using the very thing I posted earlier in this thread.

324 Wow. You really aren't very bright. If people are coerced, forced that is, to register, then they have lost freedom. Freedom is important. (It's hard to type this slowly enough that you'll be able to follow. I hope you appreciate the lengths to which I will go to help someone differently abled such as yourself.)

Since the most important unit in politics is the individual, it is important to protect that personal freedom. Compelling somebody to do something they otherwise wouldn't is thus a net negative unless there is some countervailing good created. Government's involvement in marriage is one example where there is no good created. (I will note that there are ways to use marriage as a tool for political advantage such as tax breaks, marriage penalties and et cetera. Those are examples of net negatives not positives.)

A system of voluntary registry does not suffer a similar loss of freedom. People can do as they please. But they must pay a fee to do as they please, thus keeping the rest of us free from their choices. Your allegation that the fee will not be large enough to pay for the voluntary registry speaks only to the size of the fee. (I will note also that you offer no proof on that point. Your allegations are nice and all but ultimately worthless.)

If you care to argue that fees should be higher for non-compulsory registration, feel free to cast yet another set of goal posts and play a different game on a new field of argumentation. (To push the metaphor perhaps a bit too far...)

Otherwise, you must argue about one point at a time. You seem incapable of arguing one point at a time and are therefore proving yourself to be an incompetent fool.

The one point about which you disagree is: Governments should get out of the business of marriage.

Voluntary registries do not involve government in marriage. Is your problem that you don't understand the definition of the word "involve"?

Your incompetence amuses me. I await breathlessly your next revelation about an argument not made by me.

325 Government's involvement in marriage is one example where there is no good created.

Then what the hell is the point of the state registering marriages at all?  Honestly, this is getting hilarious at this point. So your suggestion is that the government setup a "system of voluntary registry" for marriages which would involve hiring people to do this and maintaining these records in perpetuity and this is "getting the government out of marriage"?  What about when people wish to end their marriage? Can they do this in any manner to which they have agreed and the state only becomes involved if both parties volunteer to submit to a court?

Otherwise, you must argue about one point at a time. You seem incapable of arguing one point at a time and are therefore proving yourself to be an incompetent fool.

What this? More self therapy? I've only ever been addressing one point. If not for your ramblings you still be on it too.

The one point about which you disagree is: Governments should get out of the business of marriage.

Again with this? Evidence? Do you think you are an anchorman or something and if you just keep repeating it, it will suddenly be true?


Voluntary registries do not involve government in marriage.

Yes they do. If the government registers something they acknowledge whatever is being registered is what it claims to be, for government purposes at the very least. You certainly aren't claiming the government would or should register something the government knows not to be what is being registered are you? The government deciding what is marriage is being involved in the marriage. It's being involved in the most basic way imaginable, by deciding what is or isn't marriage.

So, you still can't  logically say the government can get out of marriage AND registers marriages. So, you are still wrong and still owe me an apology for trying to call me moronic by using the very thing I posted earlier in this thread.

The only way for the government to logically get out of marriage is to first stop using the word entirely, including registrations. Second is to take any law off the books that only applies to or is derived from marriage.

A system of voluntary registry does not suffer a similar loss of freedom. People can do as they please. But they must pay a fee to do as they please, thus keeping the rest of us free from their choices.

For curiosity's sake I would like to ask. Under this system other people would be perfectly free to do things like refuse to give registered "gay marriages" a discount they offer for married people if they do not wish to? Or a business owner could decide to give  only people married in a manner he acknowledges family health insurance? Is that correct? Or will he lose that freedom?

326 I repeat my opinion, as opinion. You repeat your assertion as fact. That is a difference you apparently cannot see.

Government cannot get out of the business of ending marriages (or other partnerships). That is a different issue entirely from whether government should be involved in the business of marriage. Once again you have tried to conflate unrelated issues.

There should be no distinction made by the state between marriage and other forms of business partnerships. I thought we had well established my opinion on that matter. Apparently I must type every codicil every time in order to get you to follow the argument.**

"If not for your ramblings you still be on it too."
I cannot tell what you meant to type but this argument sums your efforts so far rather nicely.

As to your poorly written insurance question --
Employment and health benefits should be decoupled. That was another government initiative that failed.

Once again we get to the nub. You cannot conceive the government getting out of the business of marriage and you're happy in that world. Congratulation. The chains do appear to fit nicely.

**You're not very bright and I'm sorry for that. You're unable to understand and respond to an argument in anything approaching a rational way. Good luck with that.

327 I repeat my opinion, as opinion. You repeat your assertion as fact. That is a difference you apparently cannot see.

That's chiefly because, as I have amply shown, what I maintain is indeed a fact. Your's is merely an opinion because it's patently wrong. It's is ridiculous to suggest that the state continue to operate in exactly the manner it has been regarding marriage except that now they will call the union of any 2 people marriage instead of only a man and a woman and say this is getting the government out of marriage, which is essentially what Lee suggested and you defended. That is merely an adjustment, that is not getting the government out of anything. In fact it makes the government more involved in the marriage business because now it would even redefine the word marriage contrary to the people's clearly expressed desire and all of our recorded history. Prior to this the government had no set defintion of marriage because it is a word that has been so clearly defined as the union of a man and woman that to do so would be redundant.

Government cannot get out of the business of ending marriages (or other partnerships). That is a different issue entirely from whether government should be involved in the business of marriage. Once again you have tried to conflate unrelated issues.

Indeed those are different issues and I am not remotely trying to conflate them. You have been in almost every post by going on about how you think I think the government must be involved in marriage.  I have never said that. Government can indeed get out of the marriage business, by stopping using the term marriage and only using laws derived from partnerships. Marriage and it's business is something the state co-opted and made into law. They would  need to get rid of all of it to get out of the business and that includes not registering ANYTHING as a marriage.

There should be no distinction made by the state between marriage and other forms of business partnerships.

Great and that includes not calling these partnerships marriage.  Calling them marriage, and using laws based on  marriage traditons, is making a distinction. Partnerships should use partnership law. They won't be limited by familial relationship, they can have set time limits, they can include any number of people legally entitled to enter into a contract and any clause the parties agreed to will be honored in a court of law as long as it doesn't violate the partie's civil rights, etc., etc. etc. THAT is getting the government out of marriage. Some people make a contract and the government honors and enforces it. End of story. The government doesn't have some set defintion of what governs a partnership unlike current partnerships which the government is up to it's neck in as much as or more than marriage.

But that is not what Lee, or you by defending him and constantly insulting me, ever suggested.

I thought we had well established my opinion on that matter.

Our opinions on whether the government should or should not be involved in or can or cannot get out of the marriage business are totally irrelevent to the point. We could have an opinion anywhere along the spectrum you care to pick. It would not change the fact that it is ridiculous to say the government can BOTH register marriages AND get out of the marriage business. THAT is the only point ever actually disputed here.

As to your poorly written insurance question --
Employment and health benefits should be decoupled. That was another government initiative that failed. 

Nice dodge. Employment and health benefits are already decoupled. Employers are not required to actually purchase insurance. If an employer does voluntarily choose to purchase insurance for only the employees he acknowledges as married would your system require him to also to so for voluntarily registered "gay marriages"?

You're unable to understand and respond to an argument in anything approaching a rational way.

More self reflection here? Am I the one attempting to suggest that some silly idea of volunteer government registraions, with their associated costs and potential for coption, is somehow magically not involving the government in marriage? That's rational? Suggesting patrnerships as an example of the government being uninvolved in something despite a national ACT covering every detail of what constitutes a partnership? That's rational?

You cannot conceive the government getting out of the business of marriage

Not only can I concieve of it, unlike you I have actually described how that can be done. What you are describing is not getting the government out of anything, it's merely expanding the current marriage business to include any 2 people regardless of their gender. You, like Lee, make an adjustment and scream Viola! as if something has actually been changed except for the definition of marriage. You mention stuff you don't like and would eliminate about how the government current runs the marriage business and that's nice and all but that isn't part of what Lee described, and you defended, and so is irrelevent to the point.

328 Rocks,
As I stated above, this whole thing would have gone more quickly if you had followed some easy steps:
1) Declare your anti-gay marriage position; and
2) Allege that I support gay marriage (I do not.)

All the rest is so much nonsense.
And that's why you have such a hard time formulating a rebuttal to my less government opinion.

"Prior to this the government had no set defintion of marriage because it is a word that has been so clearly defined as the union of a man and woman that to do so would be redundant."
And just think, if my position had been followed from the off this never would have become an issue. But by expanding government we find ourselves having to defend what is so obvious. Gee, I wonder if the prudent thing to do would be to get government the hell out of areas where it doesn't belong so we could avoid these ridiculous entanglements again. But you argue against that because you wish to use the state to further your preferred intrusions.

It's as if you're not very bright. And typing a bunch of words won't change that.

"Partnerships should use partnership law."
Hey. I've been advocating that the entire time. And partnerships can register with the government. If you look closely, you got close to admitting my point completely.

Employment and insurance have not been decoupled. That is patently obvious to all but the mentally deficient. It's called the tax code. Look into it.

There was no national act regarding partnerships. You don't know much about law. No shame there. You do make me laugh. I would love to hear more about your theories on the law.

329 As I stated above, this whole thing would have gone more quickly if you had followed some easy steps:
1) Declare your anti-gay marriage position; and
2) Allege that I support gay marriage (I do not.)

1) I have stated numerous times in this thread and others that there is no such thing as "gay marriage". How someone can be 'anti" something which doesn't exist I have no clue. I'm certainly anti the government suggesting it does exist if that's what you mean.
2) You certainly support the government registering "gay marriages". You have stated such in agreeing with Lee.
3) What relevance  does either of those points have? None. Why you continuously bring this up I again have no clue except perhaps as an attempt to divert from how moronic you look in defending Lee to begin with and insulting me.

And just think, if my position had been followed from the off this never would have become an issue.

Which position of yours is this? The one you are suggesting now or Lee's position? The later is the only one being argued over here.

But by expanding government we find ourselves having to defend what is so obvious. Gee, I wonder if the prudent thing to do would be to get government the hell out of areas where it doesn't belong so we could avoid these ridiculous entanglements again. But you argue against that because you wish to use the state to further your preferred intrusions.

I have never argued against getting the government out marriages. If you are going to keep suggesting this then I am going to keep asking you to provide evidence, for which there isn't any.

Hey. I've been advocating that the entire time. And partnerships can register with the government. If you look closely, you got close to admitting my point completely.

No, in defending Lee you advocated registering marriages. Register all the partnerships you want, just don't call them marriage. But having the government register anything is not getting the government out of that thing and it's silly to say it is. Other than your defense of Lee and insulting me because of it I could care less what you think about marriage, what the government should or shouldn't do about it, etc. It's all irrelevant. The only relevant point here is it's ridiculous to suggest the government can BOTH register marriages AND be said to be out of the marriage business. I was right when I criticized Lee for it and I'm right now.
Why you attempted to defend it, and insult me in the process, is as mind boggling as Lee's statement was to begin with.

Prior to Lee's comment you had said  "Get the government completely out of the business of marriage.". That is not what Lee suggested. Lee stated the government should register marriages. Obviously you only gave Lee's statement a cursory read and assumed he was making the same point you were, he wasn't.

Employment and insurance have not been decoupled. That is patently obvious to all but the mentally deficient. It's called the tax code. Look into it.

Employer's are not required to provide health insurance. Basically you have no answer to the question then?

There was no national act regarding partnerships.

The Uniform Partnership Act? Notice I never suggested this was some Federal law. I point that out because you have a habit of reading things into people's statements which are not suggested.

330 Both the US and states' constitutions were intended as protection for the minority against the majority, and in that regard the Iowa Supreme Court ruled as it should.  If the majority is large enough to amend the constitution--bring it on.


"Someone is WRONG on the internet!"
http://laughingsquid.com/someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet/

331 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

332 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

333 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

334 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

335 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

336 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

337 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

338 Laptop Battery Laptop Battery Laptop BatteriesLaptop Batteries discount laptop battery discount laptop battery notebook battery notebook battery computer battery computer battery replacement laptop battery replacement laptop battery notebook batteries notebook batteries

339 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

340 Supra FootwearThe supra shoe is comfortable and can wear all day.
supra ShoesThe bestsupra.com seems to be from strong material, and have many seems all over. They are really beautifull.
Supra Skytopbestsupra.com offer Great quality shoe for a reasonable price.
Supra 2009Comfort

341 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

342 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

343 soccer jersey supplier | Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Watches | Replica Cartier | soccer jersey wholesale | Fake Bedat & CO Watches | Cartier Fake | Ebel Watches | Wholesale Daniel Roth Watch | Girard Perregaux Fake Watches | Patek Philippe Replica | Piaget Watch Replica | IWC Replica | Louis Vuitton Replica Watches | Tissot Watch Replica

344 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

345 soccer jersey supplier | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Watches | Montblanc Fake Watches | Tag Heuer Watches Replica | Fake Blancpain | Fake 2009 New Arrival | Chanel Fake Watches | Fake Ebel Watches | 2009 New Arrival Watch | 2009 New Arrival Replica | Fake Chanel Watches | Montblanc Fake Watches

346 Replica Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Fake Watches | Replica Omega | replica soccer jersey | A Lange & Sohne Watch Replica | Rado Replica Watches | Replica Bulova | Roger Dubuis Fake | Wholesale Chanel Watch | Panerai Watches | Porsche Design Replica | Omega Replica Watch | Corum Fake | Mont Blanc Replica Watches

347 Replica watches | Replica Omega | replica soccer jersey | Replica Breitling Watches | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Girard Watches | Fake Cartier | Jaeger Lecoutre Fake Watches | Corum Fake Watches | Fake Iwc | Porsche Replica | Fake Tudor Watches | Replica Omega Watches | Calvin Klein Watches Replica | Cheap Burberry

348 UGG BOOTS

349 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

350 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

351 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

352 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

353 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

354 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

355 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

356 Tie Clip Best | Bracelet Luxury | Stainless Steel Bangle Wholesale | Bracelet Luxury | Ceramic Bracelet Yiwu | Wholesale Necklaces Tiffany Jewelry | Line Earring Wholesale | Dior Jewelry Fashion | Laser Earring Luxury | Wholesale Casting Bracelet Jewelry | Key_Chain Wholesale | Wholesal Plating Ring | Tungsten Rings Best | Wood Bangle | Wholesale ceramic rings Jewelry | Wholesale Stainless Steel Rings Jewelry | Zircon Cufflink | Wholesale Corrosion Cufflink Jewelry | Cutting Bracelet Cheap | Cartier Jewelry

357 Fake Watches | Fake Watches
Replica Cartier Watches
Piaget Replica
Fake Emporio Armani Watches
Christian Dior Fake Watches
Replica Omega Watches
Gucci Replica Watches
A Lange & Sohne Fake
Fake Chanel
Cartier Watch Replica
Replica Cartier Watch
Replica Breitling
Fake Concord Watches
Emporio Armani Watch Replica
Bedat & CO Fake Watches
Fake Omega
Fake Mont Blanc
Chanel Replica Watches
Tissot Replica
Rolex Watches
Replica Bedat & CO Watches
Chanel Watch
Bedat & CO Watch Replica
Raymond Weil Replica Watches
Breguet Watch
Oris Replica

358 apple mobile apple mobile iPhone 3GiPhone 3G iPhone 3Gs iPhone 3GsiPhone apps iPhone apps iPhone mmsiPhone mms iPhone accessories iPhone accessories iPhone OS 3.1 iPhone OS 3.1

359 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn

360 nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93

361 Wholesale rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica rolex watches,replica watches replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet watches replica montblanc watches from China.Tag heuer fake watches and replica watches replica tag heuer watches,buy replica rolex watches and replica rolex breitling watches breitling watches at lowest price for you.

362 Replica rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica rolex watches,replica watches replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet watches replica montblanc watches for men and women.

363 Replica fake watches and replica watches brands,rolex watches rolex watches, replica rolex: replica rolex,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: replica panerai watches,replica armani watches: replica armani watches,replica audemars piguet: replica audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: replica bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: replica chanel watches,replica gucci watches: replica gucci watches,replica movado watches: replica movado watches,replica montblanc watches: replica montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: replica patek philippe sale.Replica rolex watches and tag heuer watches, rolex watches,Replica Watches replica watches,patek philippe patek philippe Watches,audemars piguet audemars piguet,Omega Watches: omega watches,replica Cartier Watches cartier watches,Breitling Watches breitling watches,Chanel Watches: chanel watches,armani watches: armani watches,iwc watches iwc watches,mont blanc watches montblanc watches.

364 We sell rolex and tag heuer watch, rolex watches,Rolex replica watches,replica patek philippe Watches,replica audemars piguet,Omega Watches omega watches,replica Cartier cartier watches,Breitling breitling watches,replica chanel watches,armani watches: armani watches,iwc watches iwc watches,montblanc montblanc watches Replica.Cheap fake watches and replica watches on sale,rolex watches rolex watches, watches replica rolex,replica breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: replica panerai watches,replica armani watches: replica armani watches,replica audemars piguet: replica audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: replica bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: replica chanel watches,replica gucci watches: replica gucci watches,replica movado watches: replica movado watches,replica montblanc watches: replica montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: replica patek philippe sale for people.

365 Cheap replica rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.

366 Best Gucci News bags | Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Fake Handbags | Best Chole bags | Mulberry Fake Handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Chanel Replica bags | Luxury Chanel handbags | Chanel Replica bags | Gucci Wallets Replica bags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Leather handbags | Replica Gucci Handbags | Gucci Replica bags | Best Thomas Wylde bags | Best Versace bags | Best D&G bags | Luxury Fendi handbags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton handbags | Replica Fashion Prada handbags | Luxury Gucci Shoes handbags | Marc jacobs Fake Handbags | Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Fake Handbags | Marc jacobs Fake Handbags | Luxury S.T. Dupont handbags | Luxury Gucci Shoes handbags | Fendi Replica bags

367 UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots
Ugg classic cardy
UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots

368 replica rolex rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.breitling watches breitling watches at low price.

369 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

370 Buy rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet> replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches watches replica montblanc watches.Rolex fake watches and replica watches brands,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer, replica rolex: replica rolex replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: panerai watches,replica armani watches: armani watches,replica audemars piguet: audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: chanel watches,replica gucci watches: gucci watches,replica movado watches: movado watches,replica montblanc watches: montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: patek philippe on sale.replica watches and replica watches.

371 Hair Straightener
chi hair straightener
chi flat irons
chi iron
best hair straightener
ceramic hair straightener
flat iron
pink chi hair
chi hair irons
ghd
Pink GHI Hair
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Flat Irons
Hair Straightener
chi hair irons
chi hair straightener
best hair straightener
chi hair iron
pink chi hair
chi hair irons
Pink GHI Hair
Pink GHD
GHD
Nike Kobe Shoes
Nike Lebron Shoes
discount nike shox shoes

372 徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信 徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信 徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信社徵信

373 Good replica watches and buy replica watches and replica rolex replica replica tag heuer watches,buy replica replica omega watches and breitling watches replica breitling watches sale at lowest prices.

374 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW

375 Buy rolex replica watches and replica watches replica replica watches and replica rolex watches patek philippe watches and fake watches and breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches at lowest prices.

376 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn
air max tailwind
nike air max tailwind
womens air max 1
womens air max 90
womens air max 95
womens air max BW
womens air max LTD
womens air max TN
womens air max 360
womens air max 2003
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009

377

weight loss tips weight loss tips cheap car insurance cheap car insurance coach handbags coach handbags electronic cigarette electronic cigarette nfl jerseys nfl jerseys tomic tomic nfl jersey nfl jersey abercrombie fitch wholesale  abercrombie fitch wholesale Cartier Montblanc cartier monblanc blackberry fans blackberry fans jordan shoes jordan shoes true religion true religion love coach handbags  love coach handbags monica~yo monica~yo nfl jerseys nfl jerseys ed hardy shirt  ed hardy shirt weight loss tips weight loss tips ghd ghd seochan seochan jerseysshoes shoes wholesale wholesale abercrombie fitch abercrombie fitche tomic tomic time's up time's up skechers shape up shoes  skechers shape ups shoes

378 The replica watches dial design replica watches 100% copy replica watches of the previous omega watches model: the famous Manchester Logo is located at 3 and the cartier watches chronograph 45-minute breitling watches at 9 with orange figures. Football fans can use the very special 45-minute chronograph to measure the halves of a football match. Black patek philippe hour hand and minute hand features yellow luminescent coating. The hour makers, chronograph audemars piguet and the first 15-minute scale of the tag heuer chronograph counter is montblanc watches presented in eye-catching rolex red. Bright Yellow movado watches tones are found on the minute track, date bvlgari watches window and the text.

379 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

380 Cheap replica watches and replica watches 100% copy replica watches of the previous omega watches model: the famous Manchester Logo is located at 3 and the cartier watches chronograph 45-minute breitling watches at 9 with orange figures. Football fans can use the very special 45-minute chronograph to measure the halves of a football match. Black patek philippe hour hand and minute hand features yellow luminescent coating. The hour makers, chronograph audemars piguet and the first 15-minute scale of the tag heuer chronograph counter is montblanc watches presented in eye-catching rolex red. Bright Yellow movado watches tones are found on the minute track, date bvlgari watches rolex on sale.

381

fortunately,i meet this site,this site is very good.
Welcome all to go to my space:

cheap shoes

 

382 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009

383 this replica watches replica watchWhoever wants replica watches timekeeper that does the job of a tachometer will be crazy for. The operation is performed by the copied replica rolex 's bezel. The Daytona also applies automatic movement ¨C just one of many breitling watches characters and functionalities that ensures the precision of time. Originally created to measure lap time and the cartier watches overall time of a race, Rolex Daytona replica omega watches timepieces can measure elapsed time for omega any sporting event. The power of this breitling replica item is made possibly by its internalized perpetual rotor mechanism. Known for its precision, this special Rolex replica cartier watch model only has to be set once to the cartier watches standard time of the owner's choice. Once rolex watches being created, it updates itself during time changes, making upkeep of the replica's time setting replica watches nonexistent. Even though these replica watches were made for sporting events, (specifically those involving laps or circuits), it's not so adversible to put them tag heuer in water since they are not fake watches waterproof. Even thought most of the time, the replica watches do not bear the tag heuer same functionalities as the original ones, they are still the most desirable alternatives of the expensive real models.

384 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.