1 It's ME not MA.

2 You mean ME right?

3

MA = Massachusetts

4 While I'm glad that Maine did this the appropriate way -- legislatively -- I'm still of the opinion that the government needs to get out the marriage business altogether. The only gov't construct should be a civil partnership/union and marriages should be religious/community ceremonies.

But that's just a pipe dream of mine.

5 ME is correct..

6 LOL, posting too fast.

7 Slu is so going to kick Gabe's ass for this.

8 I fixed it for him.

9 This bill, and Vermont's I am totally cool with. It is in line with federalism and it protects the establishment clause. From a role-of-government persepctive, it is enacted at the proper level. Even though morally I disagree, I can't find fault with the process. I'd much rather have it this way instead of another Roe v. Wade-type directive from the Supreme Court.

10 i agree with h2u and i am a "concerned Christian conservative".

11 OT but some good news today.

The GOP caucus moved Jeff Sessions into Specter’s slot as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings will be interesting.

Hot Air

12 What #9 said. 

13

I fixed it for him.

We must have fixed it at the same time. I fixed it while it was pinging the feed sites.

IN ANY CASE, Slublog can perform marriages in Maine. FYI and betcha din't know that.

14 Posted by: TendStl at May 06, 2009 12:18 PM (aEjif)

We had that on Monday!

Only Ace doesn't get to read the blog.

15 I wasn't sure the gov was going to sign it, honestly.  He could have allowed it to become law without his signature, which would have been more the Baldacci style.

16 Gabe, get busy memorizing those state postal codes.  We morons are easily confused.  There'll be a test at the end of the day.

17 Wait, Maine isn't the same as Massachusetts?  Bah, all New England states are the same.

18 Posted by: DrewM. at May 06, 2009 12:19 PM (PLGGU)

I suck

19

The Maine marriage bill, like Vermont's, contains religious conscience exemptions for churches and also explicitly provides that no person for any reason (religious or not) that is allowed to perform marriages can be forced to perform a marriage they don't want to.

 

Can we get an over and under on how long those exceptions will be allowed to stand by the Maine S.C.? 

I say 2 months.

20 There's a chance the law won't survive past November.  Maine allows for a people's veto on all legislation.  Last year, we vetoed a tax cut.  I'm guessing the signature drives are going to kick into gear pretty fast.

21

17

They both root hard for the Red Sox, so they're both second class citizens.

Anyway, at least this was done legislatively.

22 I would prefer this to the courts any day but I still thing it is wrong on some level. Even in New England the majority of the people would rather see civil unions. This is  passing because people don't wish to fight over it but no one in passing these  has yet to make a legitimate argument why a same sex union should be termed a marriage. All these states have civil unions. These laws are only passing due to copious exceptions and next the LBGT lobby will just use these laws to get all the exceptions thrown out by the courts.

23 There's a chance the law won't survive past November.  Maine allows for a people's veto on all legislation.  Last year, we vetoed a tax cut.  I'm guessing the signature drives are going to kick into gear pretty fast.

Posted by: Slublog at May 06, 2009 12:27 PM (qjKko)

Slu Maine has civil unions correct?

24 Slu Maine has civil unions correct?

Not at present, no.  A lot of employers allow same-sex domestic partners to share benefits, but no official civil union law.

25 Last year, we vetoed a tax cut.

What? It boggles the mind.

26 Next up:  Elementary school lesson plans. 

27
Can't argue with the way this was done -ie. legislatively.

Now, if we could only get Roe v Wade overthrown and the abortion issue tossed back to the states where it belongs constitutionally.

Then we'd see what people actually want and vote for and maybe these hot button issues would wither away.

28 This is the best news I have heard all year!!!!  Now, how to I get my ebony dreamboat to ME for a quick weekend getaway for man love?

29 h2u @ 4:
I hear this idea a lot now, and it is really kind of silly.  If the state doesn't do marriages, then people who aren't religious won't be able to get married.  Unless they join some type of Church or something like that.  Why would we require people to join some type of Church or community in order to get married?  When you think this through, it doesn't really make sense. 

The ideas of marriage, family, procreation, child-rearing, etc are hugely important to a nation/society.  In fact probably the most single important thing.  The idea that the governing body should have nothing to say about these ideas does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

30

I didn't fix shit.

 

So there.

31 While I'm glad that Maine did this the appropriate way -- legislatively...
Posted by: h2u at May 06, 2009 12:14 PM (TZKUw)

Maybe the citizens of the state should have a say in this. Oh, wait. We just employ our State Reps and Senators. I guess what we think means shit to our CongressAssholes. From the Portland Press Herald: According to Pan Atlantic, 49.5 percent said they oppose the bill, 47.3 percent said they support it and 3.3 percent said they don't know. (I am not sure how to insert the link). I can't wait until the time comes to get my family the hell outta here. However, my wife is from here and it wouldn't be cool to move my young girls (6 and 2) away from their grandparents. Otherwise it would be AMF.

32

People from Maine really think of it as North Massachusetts.  Really.  They do.

They call themselves Nor'Massans.  Srsly.

33

People from Maine really think of it as North Massachusetts.  Really.  They do.

They call themselves Nor'Massans.  Srsly.

Do they also have that asshat accent when they speak?

34 And Connecticut is a suburb of New York.  It's not really a state either.

35 Any bets on which state will be the first to authorize the Bestiality Marriage Bill?

36

34 And Connecticut is a suburb of New York.  It's not really a state either.

So there are really only 56 states?

37

Any bets on which state will be the first to authorize the Bestiality Marriage Bill?

New Virginia.

38 Does the bill also provide for people who don't want to take pictures of same-sex couples getting married?

39 Not at present, no.  A lot of employers allow same-sex domestic partners to share benefits, but no official civil union law.

Posted by: Slublog at May 06, 2009 12:34 PM (qjKko)

They have Domestic Partnerships though right?

Why isn't this sufficient? And why do they need to be called marriages?

As a legislator what is the point of this bill?

40 Good for them.  Nice to see people changing things the right way for a change (I.E. through voting).

Still  not sure if I can support such a change in CA, gays have been so very intolerant and nasty to people who disagree with them here it makes it hard for me to extend tolerance to them.

41 "I hear this idea a lot now, and it is really kind of silly. If the state doesn't do marriages, then people who aren't religious won't be able to get married. Unless they join some type of Church or something like that. Why would we require people to join some type of Church or community in order to get married? When you think this through, it doesn't really make sense."

dan, you missed the part where I said "religious/community" services. If a marriage is simply a societal construct rather than a legal one, you could have a friend marry you. The only involvement the gov't should have is approving a request for a civil union/partnership.

This absolutely makes sense as the gov't has no mandate to define what marriage is and isn't.

"The ideas of marriage, family, procreation, child-rearing, etc are hugely important to a nation/society. In fact probably the most single important thing. The idea that the governing body should have nothing to say about these ideas does not make a whole lot of sense to me."

Of course they are important! I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But homosexual couples deserve recognition under the law even if what they're doing doesn't fall under the traditional definition of marriage. The government IS directly discriminating against them by simply being involved in what is ultimately a societal construct. Such is why there should be a separate legal term -- civil union -- and societal term -- marriage.

"Maybe the citizens of the state should have a say in this."

FishFearMe, we live in a democratic republic. There are roles for citizens and elected representatives. In CA, where I live, propositions can be voted on by citizens that directly influence the laws of the state. I'm not sure if that's available in Maine, but that's something for the voters to consider if this legislation goes against their wishes.

But don't act like this was some illegal act that goes against the Maine or US constitutions. It was entirely on the level and I have to support that.

42 Does the bill also provide for people who don't want to take pictures of same-sex couples getting married?

Posted by: soulpile at May 06, 2009 12:48 PM (Difyf)

"But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage."

I don't know but I would think not. That's the funny thing about these "exceptions". The Churches are exempt, but people not so much. So a Catholic is allowed to believe that 2 men aren't married but not to treat them that way.

43 As a concerned conservative Christian deeply concerned over the country's gradual transformation into New Gomorah, I am deeply concerned that my concerns are trumped by relief that this next step on the road to hell was sanctioned by the people by means of their duly appointed legislators, and not by means of judicial fiat, as H2U suggested above.

Maybe I'm not as concerned, Christian, or conservative as I thought I was.

44

If the state doesn't do marriages, then people who aren't religious won't be able to get married.  Unless they join some type of Church or something like that. 

It just means that they wouldn't be able to go through a traditional marraige ceremony, which is usually religious in nature  (ie, requiring a priest, in a church).  Courthouse weddings are only marraiges in the loosest sense of the term--the judge is basically legalizing a formal partnership without all the "prom night for adults" fanfare.

Quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with our society cutting down the number of wedding ceremonies.  Weddings, even the small ones, are usually incredibly expensive and it's honestly stupid for a couple starting their life together to be thousands of dollars in the financial hole before the cake is even cut.  In this day and age, they are also typically anti-climactic, since couples are now living together more and more before the wedding anyway, and the ceremony is more for purposes of formality than anything else.  It makes more sense to me that adult partners can pay the state a small fee to join them in a civic union and let those who want the pomp of a wedding to do that separately.  And for gays, it won't be too hard in the age of the internet to find a pastor who will marry them as well if they decide to do a wedding ceremony later on.

On the humorous side, I would love to see militant atheists demanding to be provided a wedding in a church.  Should provide for plenty of ironic laughs.

45 "As a concerned conservative Christian deeply concerned over the country's gradual transformation into New Gomorah, I am deeply concerned that my concerns are trumped by relief that this next step on the road to hell was sanctioned by the people by means of their duly appointed legislators, and not by means of judicial fiat, as H2U suggested above."

LOL. I'm pretty sure there was some snark in there.

46 "In this day and age, they are also typically anti-climactic, since couples are now living together more and more before the wedding anyway, and the ceremony is more for purposes of formality than anything else. It makes more sense to me that adult partners can pay the state a small fee to join them in a civic union and let those who want the pomp of a wedding to do that separately. And for gays, it won't be too hard in the age of the internet to find a pastor who will marry them as well if they decide to do a wedding ceremony later on."

Well said, A Lock Of Che Guevara's Chest Hair. And homosexual couples shouldn't even need a pastor to be wed in a purely societal ceremony like a wedding. They could have a friend perform the ritual.

My girlfriend and I have already been discussing marriage and we'd rather just go to the gov't, get a marriage license, and blow our money on an awesome honeymoon in Maldives.

47 I was born in Lewiston Maine. And damn proud of it. We do NOT consider our state "northern massachusetts". That is 100% bullshit.

If you are from anywhere but Maine, including Mass. we say you are "from away." That should give you an idea. The politics are more similar to those in New Hampshire than Mass.

Nor'Massons? That's bullshit. yinzer, you are also full of shit. Don't lump us with the Massholes, the RI degenerates, the Connecticut richees and the Vermont wackos.

Maine is a great state, the most beautiful state with the most beuatiful forests and coasts, and furthermore the most straightforward people in the country. You can all go to hell.

48 Is it really necessary to put in a clause that says you can't force a person to marry you?  Was that something that was happening?  Who in the world would choose to be married by someone that didn't want to marry them?  Was there any civil servant or minister that could be forced to marry a heterosexual couple against their will?

h2u:

Is it really that simple?  You don't really care about the issue, you only care about the use of the word "marriage?"  Really?  Marriages have always been state-run institutions.  They have to be. 

Todd @28:

"cockfag" really?  I suppose it is telling that you think suggesting someone is gay is an insult per se.

shibumi:

Sure.  I'll take that bet.  I'll bet you $10,000 at 20 to 1 odds that no state does.  Ever.  Here's how it works: You give me $10,000 today, and in the event a State legalizes interspecies marriage, I'll pay you $210,000.  Seriously. 

49 In CA, where I live, propositions can be voted on by citizens that directly influence the laws of the state. I'm not sure if that's available in Maine, but that's something for the voters to consider if this legislation goes against their wishes.

We have a people's veto process here, yes.  This bill is going to be a huge boon for the budgets of local television stations.  Both sides are going to pour millions into the inevitable ad campaigns to come.

50 Lewiston, Lewiston, vous et ma maison.

51 People, people, you're playing checkers while the leftards are playing chess. Those of you talking about that "at least this was done by the legislature, not the court" are in for a rude awakening.  The so-called religious exemptions are put in the legislation to mollify the suckers.  The ACLU will immediately begin lawsuits and go for the total destruction of individual religious people and churches (curiously excluding their muslim allies).  First, they will send out their blackmail  letters, you must allow gays to use your wedding pavilions, halls, churches, photographers, etc or we will go after you with every legal weapon at our disposal (and their are many).  Face huge legal bills, intrusive discovery in which we will leak all kinds of personal and damaging info to allies in the drive-by-media, bad pr or cave in to our demands.  Some will cave, insurance companies will settle because it's cheaper to settle than to fight.  They will also sue under class action claims, private atty general statutes, and civil rights claims, so that they can get treble damages and your tax dollars.  The ACLU will use this as a revenue stream to continue their legal blackmail against religious people.  Those that fight will face the dice of justice.  Like the terrorists, the ACLU only has to be successful once to establish a legal precedent that they will immediately use to further bludgeon their religous enemies.  Rinse.  Repeat until they get a Supreme Court ruling that the sections of the law that protect religion are unconstitional.  That's where Barry and his social justice appointments come in.  Gee, wonder why all those groups are pushing for a "gay" judge to be appointed?

The NRA recognized this fact which is why they organized, lobbied and fought every step of the way.  They have been successful and remain vigilant.  After some initial fights and early court victories, the cigarette companies tried to work with the ACLU, leftards, etc.  As a result, cigarette companies and smokers are totally demonized and state goverments take a huge portion of their profits every year.  That's why we get all those stupid anti-smoking commercials funded by the cigarette companies.  There is something rather diabolical about your enemies using your money to demonize you or your product.

Fight, fight, fight.  The only limitations on leftard power are conservatives and religious people.  Therefore, leftards are out to destroy you and most of time, conservatives don't even realize the war is on.  They take phony solice in the fact that at least legislature voted for it this time.  How did that work out for the smokers and tobacco companies?  In some areas, smokers can't smoke in their own apt, home, or car and smoking in front of your child is child abuse all thanks to the votes of politicians. 

52 Yeah yinzer.  Stop making up shit.

53 A Lock Of...

I think you are confusing the state institution of "marriage" with the often church-run ceremony known as a "wedding."

Your marriage does not occur in a church.  It occurs in your home and in documents that are filed with the county in which you are a resident.  The wedding is a different story. 

When you dissolve your marriage, you do not (typically) go back to the church.  You go to the county. 

54

Lewiston, Lewiston, vous et ma maison.

Shouldn't you be speaking in Somali now? (or whatever language those savages speak)

55 Is it really necessary to put in a clause that says you can't force a person to marry you?  Was that something that was happening?  Who in the world would choose to be married by someone that didn't want to marry them?

The clause in the bill actually says this:

A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.

So it's more to prevent lawsuits and the like.

56 It's Swahili.  Nor'massans speak Swahili.

57 "Is it really that simple? You don't really care about the issue, you only care about the use of the word "marriage?" Really?"

I care about the issue. I want marriage to be taken out of gov't hands so as to move one step closer to the elimination of income tax. You shouldn't get tax breaks just for being married. You shouldn't be taxed on what you earn, either. My suggestion would be a step towards a truly fair tax: one based on consumption.

"Marriages have always been state-run institutions. They have to be."

That is patently false, seattle slough. The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It has only been relatively recent that gov't has been required to sanction a marriage.

And before modern history, marriage was an entirely societal construct. Don't act like the gov't has always been concerned with marriage. They only care now because of the involvement of marriage in taxation.

58 O/T

Drudge reporting that Oklahoma claims sovereignty:

http://tinyurl.com/dhx3m8

Do all states have this authority? Who's up for a wagon train?

59 Does this mean that Maine is going to have a twinkathon at the county courthouse? Just asking.

60 What a concept, the legislature passing laws on policy. If this was actually done this was in 90% of the states, maybe you wouldn't have such a freakin problem with this issue.


And if the ACLU and company push for the breaking down of all borders for objection with the support of their gay allies, then they'll prove categorically that nothing's good enough until they get everything and have you worshipping them while they do it. At which time, I doubt you'll get this passed anywhere that libs don't have 100% control like in the northeast

61 H2U @ 45:
"LOL. I'm pretty sure there was some snark in there."

Actually, dude or dudette, no. I disagree with extending the definition of marriage to cover the union of Adam and Steve, Thelma and Louise, etc., as it is poisonous to society, but if the matter is decided by the states as per the 9th and 10th amendments, I can live with it, i.e., TOLERATE it while still being opposed adamantly to it.

62

Who in the world would choose to be married by someone that didn't want to marry them?

Some same-sex couples would do it just to prove a point.  You know they would.

63

The redefinition of marriage by all the blue states seems like a foregone conclusion at this point.  The real question is what the red states are going to do in response.

If those states want to prevent marriage from having its meaning permanently corrupted, it seems to me there may be only one solution:

Completely remove the term "marriage" from the legal terminology.  Refer to all "partnerships" or "marriages" as CIVIL UNIONS, gay or straight.

Why this option is not discussed more is a mystery to me.  It prevents the government from corrupting the term (rooted in faith and tradition) for a sacred institution.  It also cuts the legs out from any silly argument secular-progressives have about denial of equal rights, or ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow seperate-but-equalism because a different word is used to refer to a gay union.

Besides, is it really the government that validates any marriage?  It seems that the committment the couples make and the vows they take in their church, synogogue, or wherever in the private realm are what make them married.  I wouldn't give a shit if some piece of paper at the courthouse referred to my marriage as a civil union.  It doesn't make me any less married.

 

 

 

64 Ahh yes, I can see a church being sued for discrimination for refusing to marry a gay couple.  It would be a big discrimination vs. freedom of religion fight, that's probably exactly what some activists want.  Personally, I fully agree with h2u on this, take it all out of gubment hands.  And I agree with Eleven that Nor'massans speak Swahili.

65 Hey, if civil unions are legal, can I still get married?

I'm actually asking seriously. I'm single (and straight), but I'd LOVE some of the benefits of "marriage." I'd also love to keep my options open. So, can I be civilly-united and still get married? And how are civil unions dissolved? I know they rejected a same-sex divorce here in Oklahoma since same-sex marriage is outlawed.

I mean, I could just make a will and power of attorney and all that, but that's effort.

66

""cockfag" really?  I suppose it is telling that you think suggesting someone is gay is an insult per se. "

 

Wow,  great interpretation there slough.  Quick, what am I thinking of now?

67 I'd just like to wish everyone a Happy Queequeg de Castro!

68 I ran ferries along coastal Maine as a kid/young man. I can tell you - there are few things less attractive than the flannel wearing gay women of Maine. I don't care if that state legalizes gay marriage or not. But I DO know what the people there look like. The question, then, isn't whether gay Mainers should be allowed to marry or not. The question is WHY the hell they'd want to.

69 h2u:

That's not entirely accurate and to the extent it is, it is irrelevant.  The government cares because it is the government that people turn to when disputes arise.  Separations, divorces, child support, custody issues, joint liability, the ability to contract on behalf of the marital community, intestacy/probate issues...  The government had to come up with a uniform set of rules so that it could settle disputes.

It isn't good enough to say, "well, in my religion, the wife can't sign a contract, so I'm not paying."  And you can't say, "in my church we don't believe in alimony."   Or "in my church the father gets full custody of all children."  Or, "in my Mosque, abuse is not grounds for a divorce."  (see what I did there?)  You may not like it, but it is the way things are and the way they have to be.

Ever since people started asking courts to settle disputes, the governement had an interest in setting up the rules. Determining when the marriage began.  Determining when it ends.

You can get married in a church.  But it is the government that people turn to when things go south.  And who would have it any other way?  If the church makes the marriage, then you are forced to stay in that church forever.  You are forced to seek the blessing of that same church (a church that may have counseled you during the marriage (badly even)) when you wanted or needed a divorce.  Don't you see how an impartial and independent court system is a necessity here?

70

Completely remove the term "marriage" from the legal terminology.  Refer to all "partnerships" or "marriages" as CIVIL UNIONS, gay or straight.

Why this option is not discussed more is a mystery to me.

Because people generally don't want the government out of the marriage business. Peopler recognize that words have power (otherwise there'd be no fight over this issue) and the word "marriage" in particular, as it is understood to come with certain government-related consequences, is not something that people want to alter on a whim.

Also, anyone associated with a gay marriage group that proposes the idea is immediately branded as SEE, WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE TRYING TO DESTROY MARRIAGE!!!!

71 For the record, I do not agree with those that want the government out of the marriage business.

72 "But I DO know what the people there look like. The question, then, isn't whether gay Mainers should be allowed to marry or not. The question is WHY the hell they'd want to."

I would argue that the question is whether they should be allowed to reproduce.

73

#19:  The Maine marriage bill, like Vermont's, contains religious conscience exemptions for churches and also explicitly provides that no person for any reason (religious or not) that is allowed to perform marriages can be forced to perform a marriage they don't want to.

 Can we get an over and under on how long those exceptions will be allowed to stand by the Maine S.C.? 

I say 2 months.

I give it until 2013 because they hope to re-elect the Obamanation who curiously has the same position as Ms. California but gets a pass.  80 - 90% of black people oppose gay marriage.  Curiously, the gay thugs did not storm black churches and attack the black people who put Prop 8 over the top .  I would have paid big bucks to see that happen!  The ACLU is in its stealth campaign mode denying that their agenda is anti-religion, and calling religious people paranoid.  Now, now, they are calling for everyone to accept the legislature's action as the will of the people (while they are fighting tooth and nail against Prop 8 which is ACTUALLY, ya know, the will of the people to protect marriage.)  Once a few more states buy into the BS, they will begin Phase 2- sue everybody and publically destroy all religious people who continue to oppose their policies (while curiously ignoring their muslim allies who stone gays to death).  They will go after the Christian service organizations, like adoption agencies, that get public funds.

74 58 O/T

Drudge reporting that Oklahoma claims sovereignty:

http://tinyurl.com/dhx3m8

Do all states have this authority? Who's up for a wagon train?

I believe that Michigan (yes, Michigan, blue state den of liberal nut jobs) has introduced sovereignty legislation, as have many other states. Try searching 10th Amendment Movement. There's already a wagon train my friend.

75 The dorkbats will snatch on to anything that will piss off the establishment, they've been trying it for years, just as all of this worldwide support for Africa for too many years, yet they are diseased, starving and still don't fuck with lions, although the "civilized world" have introduced weapons there so they can kill themselves. The world is totally fucked up and God will intervene at some point, I really believe that, someone has to intervene for sure!

76 Gabe, can we start a pool as to who is right about the Cali ruling, you or Ace?  I think we Morons can come up with some appropriate forfeits. 

77 Todd:

I don't care what you are thinking.  I'm not entirely convinced that you ARE thinking. 

Your comment above, where you sock puppeted as "Honest Cloud cockfag" saying:

This is the best news I have heard all year!!!!  Now, how to I get my ebony dreamboat to ME for a quick weekend getaway for man love?

can simply be taken no other way than as an attempt to insult someone simply by suggesting they are gay.  Are you 14?

That is, unless you are taking to an even worse level by attempting to insult them by suggesting merely that they would engage in an interracial relationship.

Are you a racist and a homophobe?  Or just a homophobe?

78 h2u:
I understand your sentiment.  Your idea of getting the state out of the marriage business seems like a good way to make a lot of problems go away.  But when you really think it through, there are many more problems with that than you might think.

You are right in calling out seattle slough about the idea that the state has always been involved in the marriage business.  It has not.  The state's involvement in marriage is a fairly recent thing and came to rise once the Church was no longer looked at as a source of authority.  It is on the authority issue where I think the idea of "getting the state out of marriage" goes wrong. 

The whole point of marriage is that you declare yourself united to your spouse in the face of some sort of authoritative entity in order to "go all in" as it were.  In medieval times, the Church was this authority figure.  So you are right that the state had no part in it.  But now that the Church is no longer looked to in the same way as those times, we need some other authoritative entity to "bless" these unions.  In the post-enlightenment world, this has to be the state, which is (ideally speaking) the embodiment of The People. 

Yes, you did mention "community" as well as "Church".  But you have to admit, there would be a big difference in terms of the significance of some marriages vs.  others if this were carried through.  Did you get married in a Cathedral amidst lots of witnesses and pomp and circumstance?  Or did you and your girlfriend take private wedding vows when you were alone and drunk in your bedroom one night?  The term "marriage" would begin to become meaningless.  What would eventually happen is that the only significant commitment between a man and a woman would become a state-given civil union.  This would become the thing that people would be most interested in when they see a guy and a girl and wonder "are they family, or is that just a fling"?  So in essence, the term "civil union" would just supplant the term "marriage".

Again, I understand your sentiment, and wish that the solution were that easy, but I think if you really start to think on how it all plays out, it just turns to chaos, and "state-given civil unions" simply become what "marriage" once was.

79 Is it that Obama is against same-sex marriage, or that he just doesn't care?

80

seattle,

Honest Cloud is a troll who comes on here and is infatuated with Obama.  That's probably all he meant by that. 

81 Isn't progress great ? Now all we have to do is remove outdated age of consent laws and Laws prohibiting beastiality and necrophilia. Then we can have sex with children, animals and dead people !

http://tinyurl.com/d5xmkv

82 How soon until you can marry lobsters?

83

Completely remove the term "marriage" from the legal terminology.  Refer to all "partnerships" or "marriages" as CIVIL UNIONS, gay or straight.

Why this option is not discussed more is a mystery to me.

Because people generally don't want the government out of the marriage business. Peopler recognize that words have power (otherwise there'd be no fight over this issue) and the word "marriage" in particular, as it is understood to come with certain government-related consequences, is not something that people want to alter on a whim.

Also, anyone associated with a gay marriage group that proposes the idea is immediately branded as SEE, WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE TRYING TO DESTROY MARRIAGE!!!!

 

I would hardly refer to it as being alterred on a whim.  If you have a better suggestion for preventing the definition of marriage from being defiled by the government, I'd like to hear it.  State government involvement in marriage is in large part completely unnecessary, except for tax benefits (which discriminate against single people), and divorce (if they are getting divorced, why would anyone care if their union is called a marriage, civil union, or boloney sandwich at that point.  Their relationship is over!)

84 I have no objection to the term "cockfag" as the first place I heard the word was in a riveting action sequence in "Team America: World Police", to which I laughed heartily! If you want a quaint disarming term for an adversary, be they straight or gay, very few phrases have the unexpected punch  of cockfag and/or half-bitch. The context is all.

85 82 your legacy media,

Hey! Hey! I've had my eye on a cute jersey cow across the pasture here in Texas, just waiting for her to be stump broke, it's the American way for gosh sakes.

86

Seattle Slough is a cockfag. 

Oh no I di 'int.

87 >> Don't you see how an impartial and independent court system is a necessity here?
Posted by: seattle slough at May 06, 2009 01:26 PM (H5l9d)

Everybody take note that seattle slough is in favor of an impartial and independent court!!!!!!!

88

"I don't care what you are thinking.  I'm not entirely convinced that you ARE thinking."

 

Sure,  you can show that you do not care by ignoring me.  No I am not a homophobe, no I am not 14.  Yes, it was a sockpuppeted comment, no it did not mean to degrade interracial unions.  If you  knew who Honest Cloud was, you would understand. Now go about your business not caring about what I am thinking

89 Seattle Slough is here. Traffic court must be closed today. 

90

Everybody take note that seattle slough is in favor of an impartial and independent court!!!!!!!

I'm hanging on his every syllable.  Fascinating.

91 yinzer

The Somalians are good people, actually. I'd take a Somalian over a guido any day of the week.

92 "If the church makes the marriage, then you are forced to stay in that church forever. You are forced to seek the blessing of that same church (a church that may have counseled you during the marriage (badly even)) when you wanted or needed a divorce. Don't you see how an impartial and independent court system is a necessity here?"

Seattle Slough, why in blue blazes would you be "forced" to stay in that church? If the marriage is simply a private commitment that is taken between two people -- as opposed to a legal arrangement -- then the church that performs the service is irrelevant. The couple doesn't need any blessing to get a divorce or to be re-married as it really has nothing to do with the church.

That fact that churches/synagogues/mosques/covens can be petty and vindictive shouldn't invalidate the idea that marriage is still a commitment that is share between two people. The person/group who performs the service of joining the two shouldn't be involved in the process anymore than a DJ at their wedding party.

"Because people generally don't want the government out of the marriage business."

People also generally want their cake and eat it, too. What people generally want and what they truly need will always be at some level disconnected. Sometimes you just have to say, "STFU -- this is how it's gonna be."

Or so goes my tyrannical opinion.


"Again, I understand your sentiment, and wish that the solution were that easy, but I think if you really start to think on how it all plays out, it just turns to chaos, and "state-given civil unions" simply become what "marriage" once was."

Dan, with the legality of prop 8 under fire marriage is already a chaotic situation. I'm simply trying to get it out of the tax code and back into the hands of people who really care about the practice.

I know it wont happen -- it's a forgone conclusion. But a guy can dream, can't he?

93 AoS morons:

I really like this place, but don't you morons think that all of this crap invented by dorkbats day to day is just BS and raises BP's to the danger level through post after post? The primary problem we face is our Troops that are in harms way and are trying to fight two wars without any support from folks back here at home, except us few that's our biggest problem.

94 I'm with several others here:  this is the Right Way to do it.  The elected representatives of the people voted to allow gay marriage.  No judges discerning emanations and penumbras, just a straight (heh) show of hands.

I do wish liberals could get their minds around this:  that when we oppose judges cramming things down our collective throats it's not always the thing itself we object to, but the process.

95

I'd take a Somalian over a guido any day of the week.

 

Knock yourself out, cuz.

96 "Family Guy" this week covered Human/Dog sex in an amusing manner. I have read that the movie "Hound Dog" covers child rape. If the people who shape public opinion continue doing what they are doing, people will eventually "vote" for these things as well.

They are already trying to define attacks on pedophiles as a "Hate Crime."

http://tinyurl.com/d5xmkv

 

97 The government will never get out of marriage because there is too much money in it for them.  The government did not get into marriage because of religion, love, or any other puffy reason mentioned above.  The government got into marriage because of property and inheritance rights.  Since all property was owned by the king or state, then if the government can disenfranchise your legal heirs, all property and wealth reverted back to the king or the state.  In the past, couples did not get married, in a church or by judge, until their marriage contract, emphasis on contract, was negotiated and signed.  If you had lots of money, the process could take years, hence long engagements.  The government didn't care who the peasants married because they had no property.  Churches filled the void with the peasants until the peasants got property.  The church and the king / government were at odds cause people tended to leave vast estates to the church which pi$$ed of the king/government.  Then, the government pretty much adopted the marriage contracts of the property owners and made it common law. 

This advantaged the government because only wealthy people tended to have wills, trusts, etc.  In general, most people die without wills and if there are no legitimate heirs, the money goes back to the king or state.  Even if they don't get all the deceased's property, they get a huge portion of it thru the probate process.  No matter how many ads you see about cheap wills, most people die without one, and this gives the government lots of room to manipulate the system.  Anyone who has been thru probate, knows just how much the government steals from you and your relatives.  People who have the misfortune of going thru probate have watched their property syphoned away and then they get stuck with a huge bill for probate costs. 

The only way you get the government out of marriage is to get rid of property and wealth.  Dear Leader is working on that at this very moment...

98 "The only way you get the government out of marriage is to get rid of property and wealth."

That's absolute crap, BlackRedneck. You can have marriage and keep property and wealth as long as you allow for civil unions. That is where the contacts will be vested, not in a purely societal arrangement.

Homosexuality isn't going away. The government cannot discriminate against them by denying them marriage. The best way to achieve a compromise is to make EVERYTHING a civil union and give the term "marriage" to whomever wants to use it.

The government should not be in the marriage business, but it should certainly be in the business of formalizing civil contracts.

99 I do wish liberals could get their minds around this:  that when we oppose judges cramming things down our collective throats it's not always the thing itself we object to, but the process.

I agree that its great the process went this way this time, but I also don't see why the court can't rule on something they see as restricting the rights of folks.

this is just going to keep on rolling. Mass. was first, as always. Led the abolishinist movement, woman's suffrage, JFK and RFK making a landmark civil rights stance, and now this. proud to be for the state that truly believes that all people are created equal.

100

Do you know the difference between a gay Maine woman and a moose??

 

About 200 pounds and a flannel shirt.  Oh yeah and she's driving a Subuaru Forester to boot.

101 Progress !:

No.  Just no.

The people will never legalize child rape or interspecies marriage.  Never. 
How can a child or an alligator legally consent?  You cannot have marriage without consent in the country.  (thank goodness)  And no one, liberal or conservative, is seriously advocating for more relaxed sexual consent and rape laws. 

This straw man argument is just stupid.  Please stop making it.

102 Did you follow the link ? If you didn't follow the link, then don't tell me the argument is stupid. If you did follow the link you would realize the argument is all too serious.


http://tinyurl.com/d5xmkv

103 Progress !

This is a serious question.
Do you have a source that isn't Bill Donohue?

104

How about this link? (a youtube video)

http://tinyurl.com/cdhn3r

105 Well, the courts are actually responsible for these bills being passed, but at least they are going through the legislature. Without the pressure of court decisions this probably wouldn't come up or pass.

106 Here's another.

http://tinyurl.com/c2xnmk

107 seattle slough:

I don't know who "Progress!" is, and his child rape bit is a dumb argument, but there is one along those lines that I have never heard answered.  You believe that barring marriage between 2 men or 2 women is discriminatory.  Do you then favor poligamy and brother-sister marriage?  If no, how is that not discriminatory towards those that want to be married in that way?

108 If you think the argument is dumb, then I suggest you don't really understand the argument.

What is unthinkable today, can become the law tomorrow. It is the old "Slippery Slope." Idea. As someone pointed out before, if you allow same sex marriage, by what stretch of logic can you deny polygamy ? The LGTGB people have also been pushing to lower the age of consent.  What makes you think that in the force of an ever steady wind, this standard won't get moved as well ?

Follow the link.

http://tinyurl.com/c2xnmk

109 Progress, I agree with you that what is dumb today can be common tomorrow.  I'm just saying that that particular argument was a bad one.  As you yourself say, it is a slippery slope argument.  (Didn't mean to hose you is what I'm saying).

110
As for this being done legislatively as opposed to by Judicial fiat, I would point out that with sufficient presentation as "Mainstream" anything will eventually become "Mainstream." The Monied people who operate the News and Entertainment industries will decide what people think in the next 10-30 years. It wasn't until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association decided to decree that Homosexuality was not a mental illness. Their argument was along the lines of "Because we cannot cure them, they must not be sick."

Well, they can't cure the people who think they are Napoleon either, but there aren't enough of em to make a significant voting/influence bloc. For that matter, do Psychiatrists EVER cure anyone ?

Nowadays, Homosexuality is considered perfectly normal among the Luminaries of the News/Entertainment and University/Political world.(you know, the really DEEP thinkers)  They have worked tirelessly to make it acceptable to the general public. 40 years ago it wasn't.

Watch the age of consent get slowly and quietly modified.

111 Great job Maine, now can I marry my son?

112

#98 "The only way you get the government out of marriage is to get rid of property and wealth."

That's absolute crap, BlackRedneck. You can have marriage and keep property and wealth as long as you allow for civil unions. That is where the contacts will be vested, not in a purely societal arrangement.

H2U, posters were commenting that the government should get out of marriage because they have no reason to be involved in love, morality, or whatever.  The government did not get involved in marriage to legislate morality.  The government is involved in marriage to determine how and when property and wealth can be transferred or inherited.  Since they get ownership of any property that can’t be inherited, they have a huge incentive to always be involved. There are also a whole host of rights and benefits that come under the umbrella of marriage.  It is not some discrete, detached legal issue that affects a minor part of our society.  It is interwoven in the fabric of our society in a myriad of ways and unraveling it will endless unforeseen consequences.  One example, ask any human resource person how much of there is spent with marriage and family issues involving insurance, benefits, sick days, etc.

The leftards go after marriage specifically because it does have such powerful meaning especially to religious people.  The ACLU have tried to destroy the boy scouts for decades.  The only thing that saved that Christian organization is the first amendment.  Plus, society is reluctant to favor gay adults over children.  So, the ACLU adapted and went after marriage.  It was a brilliant lie to link gay marriage to the civil rights issue.  (Black people really hate that by the way, but their opinion doesn’t count with the leftard agenda). 

You can have marriage and keep property and wealth as long as you allow for civil unions.  

This is false.  California completely undercuts your argument.  California HAD civil unions that gave gay people every legal benefit of marriage.  Yet, the ACLU and the gay activists attacked it in court.  Why?  Because you couldn’t force a church to perform civil unions and you couldn’t without public funds from Christian organizations who refused to recognize civil unions.  So, the 9th Circus ruled that civil unions were unconstitutional and redefined marriage.  Every time Californians have spoken, they have spoken out against gay marriage.  Funny, how the ACLU ignores the will of the people when they don’t like what the people say.  Their actions proves my point that gay activists and the ACLU are only interested in gay marriage as a weapon to use against religious people.  They won’t stop until they have destroyed every single 1st amendment protection and freedoms of the religious people in our society.  Their whole agenda is anti-religion and they won’t stop until they have pushed religion from the public square.  I say we pushback!

113 dan-O

Those are separate issues.

Incest and polygamy that is.

I have always been opposed to polygamy due to the impossibility of regulating it.  What relationship does wife 1 have to wife 3?  If wife 2 signs a contract is wife 4 later liable?  If I divorce my three wives, how much child support do I have to pay them?  How much do they have to pay each other.  It's a mess.  So as a legal institution, I can see not creating it.  Also the unsustainability of it on a large scale.  (if we were all Fundie Mormons, most of us would not be able to find wives)  That said, cohabitating and setting up all the legal instumentalities of a polygamous marraige is currently possible and legal. 

But polygamy, unlike homosexuality is not a natural trait.  Gay people are born that way.  (if you don't believe this, you don't know many gay people) Gay people no more "choose" to be gay than you or I "chose" to be straight.  There is no such inborn orientation to polygamy.  Neither to incest.

The point is, gay people not only want to marry persons of their gender, they also don't want to or can't marry members of the opposite sex.  For most gay men, marrying a woman seems as distasteful as would marrying a man to you or me.  This isn't true of polygamy and to a greater extent incenst.  Polygamy and incest are not sexual orientations.  No one, (outside some hard core Mormons) are clamoring for the right to marry their sister or brother, or more than one person.  It simply isn't an issue.

Gay marriage is happening because of a recognition that millions of Americans are gay and should be allowed to marry people they love.  There are not millions of people for whom monogamous marriage or non-familial marriage is unacceptable. 

That's why.  Also, incest historically leads to unhealthy offspring.

114 The arguments against polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality and so on all come down to "that's icky and we've never done it" in the end, regardless of the hand waving activists attempt. And that's how gay marriage was, even just ten years ago.

115 Err so called "gays" cannot, whatever they think be married because that institution is for 1 man and 1 women per wedding, that is it. I believe a same sex couple should have the same financial rights as a married couple . It is wierd they want "normal" when they so openly dramatize their difference, also I find it odd that they are so proud of their life choice but cravenlr hide behind a, for them, meaningless name, maybe some are cheerful and brightly coloured bet not many.

116 Y'know what would be a totally cool idea? I don't know why n-one thought of this before. But what if we, like, put the Gay Marriage question up to the actual citizens of the state to vote? Can we do that? Like, let people other than the legislators or judges determine what we think should happen with the cornerstone of our country's foundation?

Is that too progressive an idea? The whole "let people decide" thing?

117

But polygamy, unlike homosexuality is not a natural trait. 

Yeah, a man who desires to be with more than one woman is such a rarity. 

Gay marriage is happening because of a recognition that millions of Americans are gay and should be allowed to marry people they love. 

If the person they love is not of the opposite sex, then any union they have is not a marriage, because that is not what the word means.  But  if you wish to call yourself married, you are perfectly entitled.  Just don't recruit the government to redefine a term that is sacred to millions of Americans, and wasn't government's to begin with.

 

 

118

Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Alshttp://minx.cc/?post=286493o, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

119 Christopher Taylor:

Yes, except for those millions of gay Americans who requested that we recognize gay marriage. 

Exactly who are these polygamists (and Reggie completely misses my point in that men that want more than one wife aren't physically repulsed by the thought of marrying only one - polygamy is not an exclusive discrete orientation) and incest advocates that we are going to recognize?

red speck:

There is nothing American, nothing, about leaving the rights of a minority up to the whims of the majority.  Had America left the issue of racial segregation up to a popular vote on a State by State basis, it is not inconceivable that we would still have segregated States today.  We live in a constitutional republic.  Not a direct democracy.  Get used to it.

Chris Edwards:  Reggie1971:

Not anymore.  Now in several states, a marriage is an exclusive legal union between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.  Google it. 

It really isn't that big of a deal.  I support gay marriage.  Yet somehow, I am still a happily married (to a woman no less!) straight man.  Gays getting married doesn't threaten my marriage.  It won't turn my kids gay.  It won't turn you gay.  My kids and you are either gay or you aren't, and nothing anybody else does or says can change that.   That said, if either one of my two young boys (or you) happens to be gay, I would want them (or you) to feel free to be gay and to live a happy and fruitful life.

Living an entire life in the closet can't be very satisfying (I can only assume).  Contrast our acceptance and tolerance of our gay fellow Americans with Iran's denial that they even exist and you will recognize that we are on the right side of that equation.  Conservatives are so painfully on the wrong side of history here.  That you can't see that is stunning. 

120 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

121 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

122 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!

123 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

124 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

125 discount 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 onefree shipping

126 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.

127 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

128 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

129 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

130 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

131 Replica Omega | Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Watches | Fake IWC | Fake Vacheron Constantin Watches | Fake Panerai Watches | Rolex Watch Replica | Cartier Watch | Replica Franck Muller Watch | Replica Baume & Mercier | Fake Zenith Watches | Tissot Fake Watches | Richard Mille Replica Watches

132 Replica Watches | Fake Watches | Replica watches | Replica Rolex | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Gerald Genta | Replica Baume & Mercier Watches | Hublot Watches Replica | Replica Bvlgari Watch | Tag Heuer Watch | Replica Breitling Watch | Replica Daniel Roth Watches | Replica Patek Philippe | Franck Muller Watch Replica | Fake Bvlgari

133 replica soccer jersey | replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | Replica Rolex | Fake Cheap Rolex | Fake Cartier | Wholesale Seiko Watch | Seiko Fake | Replica Tissot Watch | Replica Jacob & Co | Hublot Watch Replica | Alain Silberstein Watches Replica | Replica Louis Vuitton Watches | Wholesale Chanel Watch | Replica Alain Silberstein

134 Replica Rolex | Replica Watches | Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Chopard Watch Replica | Replica Tissot Watches | Hublot Watch Replica | Luxury watches | Fendi Watches Replica | Fake Cartier Watches | Fake Hublot | Corum Watch | Replica Longines | Fake Rolex Watches

135 UGG BOOTS