Support
Contact
Kmiec and Morrissey on Replacing Government-Recognized Marriage with a Sex-Neutral "Civil License"
I agree with R.S. McCain that this is a bad idea. Doug Kmiec, well-known law professor from the Church of Christ-owned Pepperdine University, is echoing a growing refrain from the more libertarian-minded: get government out of the marriage business. Ed Morrissey is mostly persuaded.
Kmiec has the better argument, mostly because the “state” gave up protecting marriage and children decades ago. The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting “integrity and well-being of the family.” In fact, I’d argue that serial marriers of the kind seen in Hollywood (or in Washington DC) do more to undermine marriage than single-gender unions would ever do. The state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and have its citizens enter into partnership contracts instead. That might have the salutary effect of putting mechanisms into place for dissolutions that would keep divorces from dragging on through the courts, but also give the state more ability to enforce the terms of the contract than government is willing to do with marriages that lack pre-nuptial agreements, especially on penalties for abrogation. That would also give the courts an opening to finally get rid of “palimony”, that noxious avenue where the courts have to make determinations whether contractual relations exist between people who neither execute a contract or take wedding vows.Look, you can't have it both ways. Either marriage is important enough for society--most clearly represented by its laws--to encourage. Or it's not. Taking away government recognition of marriage as it has been understood to operate for some time now can only ever be recognized as a retreat, a diminution in the status of marriage in the United States. I firmly support same-sex marrige (OT: since when does Ed Morrissey use the term "gender", anyways?). But that support is based not on the idea that marriage is so wounded that it might as well be disolved in the public sphere, but rather because it is something special to be preserved and encouraged. Many in comments here have described in exhausting detail the benefits of marriage, not least of which are the stabilizing effect marriage has on relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see gay people as a part of that. And this isn't a trivial change being suggested. No one should be under any illusion after the past eight years of gay marriage litigation and amendment: words matter. If the term "marriage" really means so little that it can be replaced with a "civil license" available to all (gay or straight), there would have been nothing like the fight we've seen or the backlash against activists courts. Incidentally, there is a ballot petition circulating presently in California to replace all instances of the term "marriage" in law with the term "civil union" and to make such civil unions available regardless of the sex of the parties. (Contrary to popular myth, California does not have civil unions at present; it has "domestic partnerships.") The most common refrain against the petition: "We told you they were going to destroy marriage!" According to Kmiec and Morrissey, we must destroy this villiage to save it. Update: I have been told that gay people cannot have children. That is one of the dumber things I've heard today. There are thousands of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United States. Those children are every bit in need of the same legal protections and status as the children of married straight couples. Think of the children!
Comments
Posted by: someone at May 28, 2009 11:50 AM (1wXl7)
2
I think the breakdown on this subject is about money and benefits. My generation (born 1949) has contributed mightily to the deterioration of marriage and families.....do what feels good and let the chips fall where they may.
We are busy looking for the perfect partner and palming our childcare off to someone else (not really important who).
If this is just about the money and benefits then, of course, it devolves onto a contract that is drawn up by lawyers, adults and possibly the government.
What roll does religion really play in this case?
We are busy looking for the perfect partner and palming our childcare off to someone else (not really important who).
If this is just about the money and benefits then, of course, it devolves onto a contract that is drawn up by lawyers, adults and possibly the government.
What roll does religion really play in this case?
Posted by: J at May 28, 2009 11:50 AM (heZXc)
3
O/T: But fascinating nonetheless: "Hillary Clinton has intervened in talks over the future of Opel and Vauxhall
at the request of German ministers as the American Government unveiled plans
to sink more taxpayers’ funds into the European carmakers’ US parent,
General Motors (GM)" the article is entitled: "Germany calls on Clinton to resolve GM fight" http://tinyurl.com/ocxyye
at the request of German ministers as the American Government unveiled plans
to sink more taxpayers’ funds into the European carmakers’ US parent,
General Motors (GM)" the article is entitled: "Germany calls on Clinton to resolve GM fight" http://tinyurl.com/ocxyye
Posted by: muffy at May 28, 2009 11:51 AM (zplc6)
4
Yet more queer shit from Gabe. Shocking.
Posted by: Pelvis at May 28, 2009 11:51 AM (LlaBi)
5
I would like to see gay people as a part of that.
Then find a church that offers marriages to homosexuals. Hell just find a guy who will stand infront of two dudes andsay some flowery language while they declare their love. You'll get your claimed avenue of stabilization. But I ask why is it so important for government to recognize this? Does their participation in marriage give it some legitimacy that causes this supposed stabilization.
You're completely full of shit here.
Then find a church that offers marriages to homosexuals. Hell just find a guy who will stand infront of two dudes andsay some flowery language while they declare their love. You'll get your claimed avenue of stabilization. But I ask why is it so important for government to recognize this? Does their participation in marriage give it some legitimacy that causes this supposed stabilization.
You're completely full of shit here.
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 11:53 AM (Lrsi6)
6
Gabe, please explain how your marriage is voided by itbeing called a "civil union" on a piece of paper filed away in a courthouse? It was my impression that two people making a personal committment together in a private setting (in my belief, a church) is what validated a marriage, and not the almighty state.
Civil unions for all is the ideal solution. It keeps marriage sacred by keeping the state's grubby fingers off of them.
Civil unions for all is the ideal solution. It keeps marriage sacred by keeping the state's grubby fingers off of them.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 11:56 AM (b68Df)
7
"not least of which are the stabilizing effect marriage has on
relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see
gay people as a part of that."
I'm afraid Gaia isn't down with you on that, Gabe. You and your partner can never, ever, ever, ever have children. Ever. No matter how bad you want it. No matter how unfair you think it is. It. Will. Never. Happen. You can have someone -else's- children (at the cost of forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close down en masse, great job!). But that's all. And if you try to base your position on gay adoptions, you're only validating every slippery slope argument that was made, and dismissed as lunacy, when gays agitated and were eventually granted the right to adopt in the first place.
Qwinn
relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see
gay people as a part of that."
I'm afraid Gaia isn't down with you on that, Gabe. You and your partner can never, ever, ever, ever have children. Ever. No matter how bad you want it. No matter how unfair you think it is. It. Will. Never. Happen. You can have someone -else's- children (at the cost of forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close down en masse, great job!). But that's all. And if you try to base your position on gay adoptions, you're only validating every slippery slope argument that was made, and dismissed as lunacy, when gays agitated and were eventually granted the right to adopt in the first place.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 11:57 AM (/y1J0)
8
Look I don't give a shit if homosexuals want to get "married" I just don't
like all this circumnavigating the will of the people and all.
Gay marriage is not popular anywhere as has been voiced by voters pretty much everywhere its put to a vote.
So I would hope the queers would get the message but I don't think that's
going to happen.
like all this circumnavigating the will of the people and all.
Gay marriage is not popular anywhere as has been voiced by voters pretty much everywhere its put to a vote.
So I would hope the queers would get the message but I don't think that's
going to happen.
Posted by: McLovin at May 28, 2009 11:58 AM (RwvN1)
9
Many in comments here have described in exhausting detail the benefits of marriage, not least of which are the stabilizing effect marriage has on relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see gay people as a part of that.
The problem with this is twofold for conservatives:
1. the sheer artificiality of children in a "gay" relationship. Heather never did have two Mommies, there WAS a Daddy involved somewhere.
2. the dogma that women and men are like interchangeable machine parts, which is an outgrowth of the femi-communist dogma that a woman needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. Given that the last four decades have proven volumes of evidence that kids are better off with both a mother and a father (as the landmark 1994 study was titled "Dan Quayle Was Right"), there is now a new attempt, in effect, to salvage single motherhood by doubling up on the single mommies.
The problem with this is twofold for conservatives:
1. the sheer artificiality of children in a "gay" relationship. Heather never did have two Mommies, there WAS a Daddy involved somewhere.
2. the dogma that women and men are like interchangeable machine parts, which is an outgrowth of the femi-communist dogma that a woman needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. Given that the last four decades have proven volumes of evidence that kids are better off with both a mother and a father (as the landmark 1994 study was titled "Dan Quayle Was Right"), there is now a new attempt, in effect, to salvage single motherhood by doubling up on the single mommies.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 11:58 AM (ujg0T)
10
My friends who are gay are so annoyed at all of this militancy. They just want to live their lives peacefully and quietly, just like everyone else. I mean when people are at your house for a party and they feel the need to say "well, that is them, we don't feel that way" then it can't be a good thing gabe. Purging the word "marriage" is just a ridiculouos exercise. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is the way most Americans see it. Now did I watch my friend cry hysterically when his significant other's mom wouldn't let him into the hospital room cause sheis in denial of a ten year relationship and did it break my heart. Yep, so much so that I felt compelled to confront this poor worried mom and insist that he be allowed in the room. But why does it have to be that supercharged word "marriage"?
Posted by: muffy at May 28, 2009 11:58 AM (zplc6)
11
I'm all for dissolving gov't involvement in marriages. Marriage is between a man a woman and their god/church.
When the supposed 'separation between church and state' became separation of churches from any state of public existence you can no longer back the values of marriage with the states hand.
It's because of the states insistence of control over churches that this is a problem. Most church going individuals are not afraid of what two men or women do behind closed doors, they are afraid of being forced to allow that within their own churches doors. (ZOMG Hate Crimes!)
When the supposed 'separation between church and state' became separation of churches from any state of public existence you can no longer back the values of marriage with the states hand.
It's because of the states insistence of control over churches that this is a problem. Most church going individuals are not afraid of what two men or women do behind closed doors, they are afraid of being forced to allow that within their own churches doors. (ZOMG Hate Crimes!)
Posted by: aimsworth at May 28, 2009 11:59 AM (COlx6)
12
OTOH, Gabe, I do agree with your logic about "getting government out of the marriage business". It would indeed be a retreat and a dimunition of the institution. Many of us recognize that that was the real point all along (though not yours... I don't think you are malevolent, Gabe, I think you are sincere albeit wrong, but I do think you've been misled and are being used by people whose goal is simply and only to destroy marriage as an effective institution).
Qwinn
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 12:00 PM (/y1J0)
13
And what do we do with legal references to "husband", "wife" and "spouse"?
Posted by: Eric at May 28, 2009 12:02 PM (quZLX)
14
13
If you are talking about a situation where both straight and gay partnerships are referred to as "civil unions", then people would be referred to simply by their names.
If you are talking about a situation where both straight and gay partnerships are referred to as "civil unions", then people would be referred to simply by their names.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 12:03 PM (b68Df)
15
14
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 12:03 PM (b68Df)
Actually, I was talking about legal statutes which use the terms husband, wife and spouse in a legal sense.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 12:03 PM (b68Df)
Actually, I was talking about legal statutes which use the terms husband, wife and spouse in a legal sense.
Posted by: Eric at May 28, 2009 12:05 PM (quZLX)
16
Two things:
First, I disagree with Gabe on this but then again I believe that the term marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies only. The government should only be involved to the extent that it recognizes any other union under the terms of contract law. I fully and freely admit that is a radical position that will probably never be enacted. That's fine by me.
Second, can people please attempt to refrain from the immediate ad homenim attacks on Gabe and anyone else who is queer? It's degenerated to the point that any post on this topic by anyone will lead to comments that offend even me. As should be obvious, that's a pretty high hurdle to leap. It would be lovely and fantastic to be able to participate in these comment threads without having to hear how vile I am.
You can have someone -else's- children (at the cost of forcing Catholic
adoption agencies to close down en masse, great job!). But that's all.
Qwinn, I am adopted. I am NOT someone else's child. I am my parents' child, totally and utterly. The individuals who contributed my DNA are not my family in any way at all. I find it deeply offensive when people attempt to negate the familial relationship between me and my parents due to the fact that I am adopted. The point you are attempting to make about biological ability to reproduce would be far more persuasive if you didn't attempt to simultaneously denigrate adoptive relationships. And, yes, that is the logical conclusion of your statement.
First, I disagree with Gabe on this but then again I believe that the term marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies only. The government should only be involved to the extent that it recognizes any other union under the terms of contract law. I fully and freely admit that is a radical position that will probably never be enacted. That's fine by me.
Second, can people please attempt to refrain from the immediate ad homenim attacks on Gabe and anyone else who is queer? It's degenerated to the point that any post on this topic by anyone will lead to comments that offend even me. As should be obvious, that's a pretty high hurdle to leap. It would be lovely and fantastic to be able to participate in these comment threads without having to hear how vile I am.
You can have someone -else's- children (at the cost of forcing Catholic
adoption agencies to close down en masse, great job!). But that's all.
Qwinn, I am adopted. I am NOT someone else's child. I am my parents' child, totally and utterly. The individuals who contributed my DNA are not my family in any way at all. I find it deeply offensive when people attempt to negate the familial relationship between me and my parents due to the fact that I am adopted. The point you are attempting to make about biological ability to reproduce would be far more persuasive if you didn't attempt to simultaneously denigrate adoptive relationships. And, yes, that is the logical conclusion of your statement.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 28, 2009 12:05 PM (SHHaV)
17
Look, you can't have it both ways. Either marriage is important enough for soceity--most clearly represented by its laws--to encourage. Or it's not. Taking away government recognition of marriage as it has been understood to operate for some time now can only ever be recognized as a retreat, a diminution in the status of marriage in the United States.
Not a "retreat" but actual surrender.
It was a cultural battle that the Right has only recently begun to fight in earnest. Given the opportunity to fight it within the debate over gay marriage, what did we do? We opposed gay marriage for religious reasons, or were incoherent on how it would damage marriage itself.
I agree with Gabe here, even though we disagree on whether state-sanctioned gay marriage would weaken the institution. (I believe it would.) The only reason the state cares about the union of two people is that it might produce children that someone has to look after. Society has a vested interest in that.
Not a "retreat" but actual surrender.
It was a cultural battle that the Right has only recently begun to fight in earnest. Given the opportunity to fight it within the debate over gay marriage, what did we do? We opposed gay marriage for religious reasons, or were incoherent on how it would damage marriage itself.
I agree with Gabe here, even though we disagree on whether state-sanctioned gay marriage would weaken the institution. (I believe it would.) The only reason the state cares about the union of two people is that it might produce children that someone has to look after. Society has a vested interest in that.
Posted by: CJ at May 28, 2009 12:06 PM (9KqcB)
18
I think all Ace readers should marry each other. Mass Marriage. We would each have thousands of wives, and thousands of morons.
Posted by: Hopey at May 28, 2009 12:07 PM (+sBB4)
19
If we would go to a flat tax it would get government out of the marriage buisness.
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2009 12:07 PM (BYokb)
20
15
Then I suppose they would have to be referred to as a spouse or partner, in lieu of husband and wife which would be tied to the term of marriage.
Then I suppose they would have to be referred to as a spouse or partner, in lieu of husband and wife which would be tied to the term of marriage.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 12:07 PM (b68Df)
21
Yeah, a flat tax would do that, but then how would the local govt replace the revenue from the license fees?
Posted by: JEA at May 28, 2009 12:09 PM (WGbtD)
22
I tend to agree with the sentiment in #6. Not much devalues marriage quite as much as having the government involved. Let's get the government out of marriage. I don't think you even need to call it "civil unions" or "civil partnerships" or whatever. How about, as far as the government is concerned, it's JUST a contract? And any competant person can make a contract, gay or straight is irrelevant.
And you still have marriages. Churches would do them. Marriages aren't disappearing from Catholic churches anytime soon; it's one of the Seven Sacraments. Other religions are pretty steadfast about their marriage traditions too. Once religions have full and proper reign over marriage again, that will re-value marriage as what it traditionally was (i.e. why it was ever considered valuable to begin with, before the government ever laid its paws on the subject). And you know what? Some churches will offer marriages to homosexual couples, but that is up to the church. Sucks homosexual couples might feel like they have to religion-shop, but that's sort of skewing the way religion is supposed to work: religion tells you how to behave, not the other way around.
And you still have marriages. Churches would do them. Marriages aren't disappearing from Catholic churches anytime soon; it's one of the Seven Sacraments. Other religions are pretty steadfast about their marriage traditions too. Once religions have full and proper reign over marriage again, that will re-value marriage as what it traditionally was (i.e. why it was ever considered valuable to begin with, before the government ever laid its paws on the subject). And you know what? Some churches will offer marriages to homosexual couples, but that is up to the church. Sucks homosexual couples might feel like they have to religion-shop, but that's sort of skewing the way religion is supposed to work: religion tells you how to behave, not the other way around.
Posted by: Shillelagh at May 28, 2009 12:09 PM (Oz4Bj)
23
No. The advantage to creating civil marriages/unions/partnerships is that it takes away the major problem with SSM--the fact that a lot of religious folk do not want to refer to same-sex relationships with the word "marriage."
It extends equal protection to all, while respecting the fact that it may be asking too much to expect people from some faith traditions to use that word in that way.
If the state simply creates the partnerships, it then becomes up to the family/church/social circle to determine whether the partnership is a "marriage" or not, and society doesn't have to fight a civil war over linguistic matters that were covered in the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet several centuries ago (that is, "what's in a name?").
It extends equal protection to all, while respecting the fact that it may be asking too much to expect people from some faith traditions to use that word in that way.
If the state simply creates the partnerships, it then becomes up to the family/church/social circle to determine whether the partnership is a "marriage" or not, and society doesn't have to fight a civil war over linguistic matters that were covered in the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet several centuries ago (that is, "what's in a name?").
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2009 12:12 PM (TpmQk)
24
Update: I have been told that gay people cannot have children.
That is one of the dumber things I've heard today. There are thousands
of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United
States. Those children are every bit in need of the same legal
protections and status as the children of married straight couples.
Think of the children!
Perhaps you need a lesson in biology, Gabe.
Aren't you late for the "OVERTURN PROP 8, KILL ALL MORONS" rally in Sacramento?
That is one of the dumber things I've heard today. There are thousands
of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United
States. Those children are every bit in need of the same legal
protections and status as the children of married straight couples.
Think of the children!
Perhaps you need a lesson in biology, Gabe.
Aren't you late for the "OVERTURN PROP 8, KILL ALL MORONS" rally in Sacramento?
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:14 PM (5r0Tz)
25
15 14Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 12:03 PM (b68Df) Actually, I was talking about legal statutes which use the terms husband, wife and spouse in a legal sense.
This would technically be a problem with gay marriage too at least with relation to husband and wife. Spouse not so much. But this is basically the same argument of "you can't change the word marriage because it appears too much in the laws already written and you'd have to go through all of them." Its a crappy excuse of going "Its just too hard." Go try telling the gay marriage proponents that its "just too hard" and see if they'd be willing to give up.
This would technically be a problem with gay marriage too at least with relation to husband and wife. Spouse not so much. But this is basically the same argument of "you can't change the word marriage because it appears too much in the laws already written and you'd have to go through all of them." Its a crappy excuse of going "Its just too hard." Go try telling the gay marriage proponents that its "just too hard" and see if they'd be willing to give up.
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 12:16 PM (Lrsi6)
26
Furthermore, you know perfectly well why Stacy is "on your side" in this.
Hint: It's because he isn't.
Hint: It's because he isn't.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2009 12:17 PM (TpmQk)
27
Second, can people please attempt to refrain from the immediate ad homenim attacks on Gabe and anyone else who is queer? It's degenerated to the point that any post on this topic by anyone will lead to comments that offend even me. As should be obvious, that's a pretty high hurdle to leap. It would be lovely and fantastic to be able to participate in these comment threads without having to hear how vile I am.
Point taken. I have always appreciated alexchick's take on issues, and how I have wished I could have met a woman like her in my area. And then have said woman turn out to be really straight at heart and just recovering from an abusive father or ex. Or at least bi.
And while I am fantasizing, hawt too. Qwinn, I am adopted. I am NOT someone else's child. I am my parents' child, totally and utterly. The individuals who contributed my DNA are not my family in any way at all. I find it deeply offensive when people attempt to negate the familial relationship between me and my parents due to the fact that I am adopted. The point you are attempting to make about biological ability to reproduce would be far more persuasive if you didn't attempt to simultaneously denigrate adoptive relationships. And, yes, that is the logical conclusion of your statement.
I have known quite a few adoptees. All great people. But I think the artificiality of same sex couples childraising stands. Men and Women, I have found by experience, do bring different, but both necessary, perspectives on raising a family. This is not to say that every orphan or single parent raised kid turnoud out a mess. Far from it. But the odds are there.
Point taken. I have always appreciated alexchick's take on issues, and how I have wished I could have met a woman like her in my area. And then have said woman turn out to be really straight at heart and just recovering from an abusive father or ex. Or at least bi.
And while I am fantasizing, hawt too. Qwinn, I am adopted. I am NOT someone else's child. I am my parents' child, totally and utterly. The individuals who contributed my DNA are not my family in any way at all. I find it deeply offensive when people attempt to negate the familial relationship between me and my parents due to the fact that I am adopted. The point you are attempting to make about biological ability to reproduce would be far more persuasive if you didn't attempt to simultaneously denigrate adoptive relationships. And, yes, that is the logical conclusion of your statement.
I have known quite a few adoptees. All great people. But I think the artificiality of same sex couples childraising stands. Men and Women, I have found by experience, do bring different, but both necessary, perspectives on raising a family. This is not to say that every orphan or single parent raised kid turnoud out a mess. Far from it. But the odds are there.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 12:18 PM (ujg0T)
28
The fact that a topic like this is even being discussed shows just how far down the road to destruction our country has gone. This country's morals have for all intents and purposes been destroyed. This has been the goal of those who wished to destroy this country and it's constitution and knew the best way to go about it. And so so many who claim to love this country and it's constitution are a part of it and don't even realize it. Hate to break it to ya, there really is a devil and he is laughing his backside off that you bought his "best lie eveh", that he doesn't exist.
Posted by: teej at May 28, 2009 12:19 PM (c459z)
29
>>I have been told that gay people cannot have children.
That is one of the dumber things I've heard today
Indeed.
Gay guys try to make babies all the time. Usually in public parks and restrooms.
They are so persistent in trying to make babies, they will try with any other gay guy.
That is one of the dumber things I've heard today
Indeed.
Gay guys try to make babies all the time. Usually in public parks and restrooms.
They are so persistent in trying to make babies, they will try with any other gay guy.
Posted by: TE at May 28, 2009 12:20 PM (AQj/2)
30
Update: I have been told that gay people cannot have children. That is one of the dumber things I've heard today. There are thousands of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United States. Those children are every bit in need of the same legal protections and status as the children of married straight couples. Think of the children!
Gabe, I have thought of the children and I came to the conclusion that they should not be adopted to homosexuals. Is that OK?
Why are people supposed to simultaneously believe that gender is culturally constructed (boys and girls the same until inculcated with societal roles) and that children raised in a homosexual household will be exactly like all other children?
Don't ask ,"what if there is no one else?" because there is always someone else until we no longer have waiting lists.
Gabe, I have thought of the children and I came to the conclusion that they should not be adopted to homosexuals. Is that OK?
Why are people supposed to simultaneously believe that gender is culturally constructed (boys and girls the same until inculcated with societal roles) and that children raised in a homosexual household will be exactly like all other children?
Don't ask ,"what if there is no one else?" because there is always someone else until we no longer have waiting lists.
Posted by: kidney at May 28, 2009 12:20 PM (vbr6o)
31
Those children are every bit in need of the same legal protections and status as the children of married straight couples.
What distinct legal protections status do children of married straight couples receive from adopted children of Gay couples?
What distinct legal protections status do children of married straight couples receive from adopted children of Gay couples?
Posted by: pmm at May 28, 2009 12:21 PM (r8q7x)
32
Pelvis, with the precious metal content of pennies now being nearly nil, your two cents aren't really two cents (more like $.007560
, but that's okay - feel free to shut the fuck up.
, but that's okay - feel free to shut the fuck up.Posted by: Jazz at May 28, 2009 12:21 PM (hnq5i)
33
Men and and women deserve a special perk just for putting up with each other's shit. Period.
Posted by: cassandra at May 28, 2009 12:21 PM (GdalM)
34
I do not agree that anyone should ever be sexing anyone else up the butt.
However, I would apply that sentiment equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, because I am fair-minded.
However, I would apply that sentiment equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, because I am fair-minded.
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 12:21 PM (xWk3U)
35
Gay marriage is just a Trojan horse for more liberalism. Frankly I am sick of their bitching. We have about a million things on our plate as a country that are far more important than this. Gay marriage brings on gay sex ed and open homosexuality in the military, which we know will destroy morale at a time where our security is in extreme peril. Giving in on this will not be the end of the grievance mongers agenda anyway, they are only getting started. When the libs start respecting my liberty and rights (free speech, 2nd amendment, etc..) then maybe we can talk. Come back in 20 years libs...
Posted by: ken at May 28, 2009 12:23 PM (9zzk+)
36
There are thousands of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United States.
Assertion is not proof, Gabe, as you should well know. I will cross your assertion with one of my own: adopted children of gay parents are much more likely to have emotional, interpersonal, and learning problems later in life. Not much research has been done because the phenomenon is relatively new, but given the high-risk personal lifestyles that seem to predominate in gay communities, this outcome is all but certain. (It's not that their parents are gay; it's that gay parents tend to lead high-risk personal lives and tend to live in areas that are not conducive to quality-of-life for small children.)
Taking away government recognition of marriage as it has been
understood to operate for some time now can only ever be recognized as
a retreat, a diminution in the status of marriage in the United States.
That ship left port many decades ago, my friend. No-fault divorce was a big reason for it, but the sexual revolution probably inflicted a mortal blow as well. Government recognition of "marriage" these days amounts to recognition of contract law. So just make it official and conduct the whole affair as contract law.
Assertion is not proof, Gabe, as you should well know. I will cross your assertion with one of my own: adopted children of gay parents are much more likely to have emotional, interpersonal, and learning problems later in life. Not much research has been done because the phenomenon is relatively new, but given the high-risk personal lifestyles that seem to predominate in gay communities, this outcome is all but certain. (It's not that their parents are gay; it's that gay parents tend to lead high-risk personal lives and tend to live in areas that are not conducive to quality-of-life for small children.)
Taking away government recognition of marriage as it has been
understood to operate for some time now can only ever be recognized as
a retreat, a diminution in the status of marriage in the United States.
That ship left port many decades ago, my friend. No-fault divorce was a big reason for it, but the sexual revolution probably inflicted a mortal blow as well. Government recognition of "marriage" these days amounts to recognition of contract law. So just make it official and conduct the whole affair as contract law.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:24 PM (/0a60)
37
alexthechick,
I did not mean offense in that way at all, though I can see why you see it that way. In fact, I recall a time in my youth when, in retaliation for some idiots who denigrated a friend due to his being adopted, well, let's say we went -way- over the top. Heh. But anyways...
I respect the adoptive relationship. Sure. Are your adoptive parents male and female? Does everyone involved feel as if they share a blood bond that can only exist in a mom-dad-child relationship? I'm betting you all do. If that is the case, there is no way that a dad-dad-child or mom-mom-child relationship can similarly emulate the actual blood familial relationship. By insisting that it -can-, I think that you're weakening the argument for the strength of the adoptive relationship.
You can argue that your relationship with your adopted parents is as strong as anyone could have with their biological parents. I won't argue. But that only bears weight if the bond with biological parents itself means something. Disintegrate that, and you're left with there being nothing special about any parental relationship at all.
Qwinn
I did not mean offense in that way at all, though I can see why you see it that way. In fact, I recall a time in my youth when, in retaliation for some idiots who denigrated a friend due to his being adopted, well, let's say we went -way- over the top. Heh. But anyways...
I respect the adoptive relationship. Sure. Are your adoptive parents male and female? Does everyone involved feel as if they share a blood bond that can only exist in a mom-dad-child relationship? I'm betting you all do. If that is the case, there is no way that a dad-dad-child or mom-mom-child relationship can similarly emulate the actual blood familial relationship. By insisting that it -can-, I think that you're weakening the argument for the strength of the adoptive relationship.
You can argue that your relationship with your adopted parents is as strong as anyone could have with their biological parents. I won't argue. But that only bears weight if the bond with biological parents itself means something. Disintegrate that, and you're left with there being nothing special about any parental relationship at all.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 12:25 PM (/y1J0)
38
If the state can change the meaning of "Marriage"...
...it can then easily change the definition of "parents" as well.
Worship the State. It is all. Gabe says so. The State will take your kids.
...it can then easily change the definition of "parents" as well.
Worship the State. It is all. Gabe says so. The State will take your kids.
Posted by: Karl Marx at May 28, 2009 12:27 PM (AQj/2)
39
I'm all for dissolving gov't involvement in marriages. Marriage is between a man a woman and their god/church.
So, you're okay with shariah or orthodox jewish marriages, then?
So, you're okay with shariah or orthodox jewish marriages, then?
Posted by: LowestOfTheMorons at May 28, 2009 12:28 PM (S/hBA)
40
Perhaps you need a lesson in biology, Gabe. Aren't you late for the "OVERTURN PROP 8, KILL ALL MORONS" rally in Sacramento?
AHFF, bravo for that total non sequitur and accusation of...well, something or other that makes no sense. When have I ever participated in any of the Prop 8 shenanigans? In fact, I've written more than once to condemn it. So, good job, there. You really nailed that one.
As for the biology remark, I will construe your attack on adopted children the way I would an attack on any child. You are a small-minded asshole. Die in a fire.
AHFF, bravo for that total non sequitur and accusation of...well, something or other that makes no sense. When have I ever participated in any of the Prop 8 shenanigans? In fact, I've written more than once to condemn it. So, good job, there. You really nailed that one.
As for the biology remark, I will construe your attack on adopted children the way I would an attack on any child. You are a small-minded asshole. Die in a fire.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 28, 2009 12:28 PM (fKpiB)
41
Gabriel is by far the most thoughtful poster here. However, he has humped this issue harder than Charles Johnson humps Darwinism.
Can't be good for the health of this site whether you agree or disagree with him.
Can't be good for the health of this site whether you agree or disagree with him.
Posted by: Valiant at May 28, 2009 12:29 PM (JxRbD)
42
I have been told that gay people cannot have children. That is one of the dumber things I've heard today.
Well actually Gabe, Qwinn stated here that you and your partner can never have children. You could show some balls and not be passive aggressive and refer to his point directly. And then attempt to refute it. So which one of you is expecting to go into labor, and when can I see the DNA test that demonstrates you each contributed to the child's genes? Then please proceed to explain who is making the dumb statements. Since I don't believe anyone said gay people can't have children, but a gay couple is a slightly different animal in that regard.
Well actually Gabe, Qwinn stated here that you and your partner can never have children. You could show some balls and not be passive aggressive and refer to his point directly. And then attempt to refute it. So which one of you is expecting to go into labor, and when can I see the DNA test that demonstrates you each contributed to the child's genes? Then please proceed to explain who is making the dumb statements. Since I don't believe anyone said gay people can't have children, but a gay couple is a slightly different animal in that regard.
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 12:30 PM (Lrsi6)
43
Nitpick time, Gabe.
Speaking as someone who's personally very, very familiar with
Pepperdine (and the Churches of Christ), I have to point out that the
Pepperdine is not "owned" by the Church of Christ.
The various Churches of Christ are completely non-hierarchical,
and completely independent of each other, to the extent that there is
even a serious debate about whether or not churches can form temporary
voluntary associations for missionary or charity purposes. Each
individual church is self-governing and reports to no other institution
except itself.
Likewise, Pepperdine is an independent self-governing institution. It
identifies as being affiliated with the Churches of Christ, and there
is a church of Christ that meets on campus, but it is in no way "owned" by the Churches of Christ.
In fact, there are more Catholics than CoC students on campus, and they regularly hire non-CoC faculty, to include Catholics (Like Kemic), Jews (like Ben Stein and Dr. Laura), and other Protestants. The main criteria is that faculty members be serious about their religious belief.
Speaking as someone who's personally very, very familiar with
Pepperdine (and the Churches of Christ), I have to point out that the
Pepperdine is not "owned" by the Church of Christ.
The various Churches of Christ are completely non-hierarchical,
and completely independent of each other, to the extent that there is
even a serious debate about whether or not churches can form temporary
voluntary associations for missionary or charity purposes. Each
individual church is self-governing and reports to no other institution
except itself.
Likewise, Pepperdine is an independent self-governing institution. It
identifies as being affiliated with the Churches of Christ, and there
is a church of Christ that meets on campus, but it is in no way "owned" by the Churches of Christ.
In fact, there are more Catholics than CoC students on campus, and they regularly hire non-CoC faculty, to include Catholics (Like Kemic), Jews (like Ben Stein and Dr. Laura), and other Protestants. The main criteria is that faculty members be serious about their religious belief.
Posted by: DelD at May 28, 2009 12:31 PM (N6PBI)
Posted by: Karl Marx at May 28, 2009 12:31 PM (AQj/2)
45
40
I was obviously using sarcasm to make a point, Gabe. Too bad you can't see through your personal bias.
you say die in a fire?
Wow, you just proved my point, you are saying death to all who oppose your views.
It is a sad day on the AOS blog when garbage like that comes out of an authorized poster.
As hillary said to Obama, shame on you Gabe, Shame on You.
I was obviously using sarcasm to make a point, Gabe. Too bad you can't see through your personal bias.
you say die in a fire?
Wow, you just proved my point, you are saying death to all who oppose your views.
It is a sad day on the AOS blog when garbage like that comes out of an authorized poster.
As hillary said to Obama, shame on you Gabe, Shame on You.
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:31 PM (5r0Tz)
46
Men and and women deserve a special perk just for putting up with each other's shit. Period.
Cassandra for the win. I wish I had met a woman like her, come to think of it...
Cassandra for the win. I wish I had met a woman like her, come to think of it...
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 12:32 PM (ujg0T)
47
The individuals who contributed my DNA are not my family in any way at all.
alexthechick, I love you, but that's kind of a dumb thing to say. Your physical self is just as much "you" as your spiritual/mental self, so of course your biological parents are your family. I know that the "nature vs nurture" thing is well-tilled ground, but (as Stephen Pinker noted in his book The Blank Slate) you owe as much to your biological parents as to your "real" parents in regards to how you turned out.
I never knew my biological father, but I have it on good authority (my mom) that he was a complete penis-wrinkle and that I was better off not knowing him. Which may be true. Nevertheless, it's from him that I got my bad eyesight, bad skin, and blue eyes. I probably also got quick a lot of my analytical and reasoning abilities from him. Like it or not, happy with it or not, he is a part of me; without him, I would not be at all.
You can pick your friends. You can't pick your family.
alexthechick, I love you, but that's kind of a dumb thing to say. Your physical self is just as much "you" as your spiritual/mental self, so of course your biological parents are your family. I know that the "nature vs nurture" thing is well-tilled ground, but (as Stephen Pinker noted in his book The Blank Slate) you owe as much to your biological parents as to your "real" parents in regards to how you turned out.
I never knew my biological father, but I have it on good authority (my mom) that he was a complete penis-wrinkle and that I was better off not knowing him. Which may be true. Nevertheless, it's from him that I got my bad eyesight, bad skin, and blue eyes. I probably also got quick a lot of my analytical and reasoning abilities from him. Like it or not, happy with it or not, he is a part of me; without him, I would not be at all.
You can pick your friends. You can't pick your family.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:32 PM (/0a60)
48
Why are they insistent on gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions?
Because churches don't perform civil unions.
The activists are looking for a way to beat down their greatest opponents, churches.
Because churches don't perform civil unions.
The activists are looking for a way to beat down their greatest opponents, churches.
Posted by: David Frum at May 28, 2009 12:33 PM (MMC8r)
49
"If the state can change the meaning of "Marriage"......it can then easily change the definition of "parents" as well."
And the definition of "pedophelia", "rape", "justice","freedom", "property"...
slippery slope.
And the definition of "pedophelia", "rape", "justice","freedom", "property"...
slippery slope.
Posted by: theBman at May 28, 2009 12:36 PM (/vN7m)
50
48
That's what this whole push for gay "marriage" is about.
It isn't about equal rights. It isn't about people pursuinghappiness. It's about using the government to symbolically rebuke Judeo-Christian tradition. The cultural left is assaulting religious- traditionalists in this country, and they want to appropriate the government as aweapon in that effort.
48
That's what this whole push for gay "marriage" is about.
It isn't about equal rights. It isn't about people pursuinghappiness. It's about using the government to symbolically rebuke Judeo-Christian tradition. The cultural left is assaulting religious- traditionalists in this country, and they want to appropriate the government as aweapon in that effort.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 12:37 PM (b68Df)
Posted by: Karl Marx at May 28, 2009 12:39 PM (AQj/2)
52
...and just to offset the inevitable Gabe-bashers...
I think Gabe is making a good argument, it's just not an argument that I agree with.
I think this whole "gay marriage" brouhaha completely misses the central point: what legitimacy can a government lend to what is essentially an agreement between two individuals? None, really -- there are perquisites and benefits to that recognition, to be sure, but people got along without those things for a long long time. As a civil matter, the domestic arrangements of free citizens are primarly a matter of contract law: who is responsible for what, who gets what if the relationship ends, etc.
I think that gays really need to sit down and think about what they really want from marriage. Or rather, what they want from it that they can't already get from existing civil-union and contract law.
I think Gabe is making a good argument, it's just not an argument that I agree with.
I think this whole "gay marriage" brouhaha completely misses the central point: what legitimacy can a government lend to what is essentially an agreement between two individuals? None, really -- there are perquisites and benefits to that recognition, to be sure, but people got along without those things for a long long time. As a civil matter, the domestic arrangements of free citizens are primarly a matter of contract law: who is responsible for what, who gets what if the relationship ends, etc.
I think that gays really need to sit down and think about what they really want from marriage. Or rather, what they want from it that they can't already get from existing civil-union and contract law.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:41 PM (/0a60)
53
52
...and just to offset the inevitable Gabe-bashers...
I think Gabe is making a good argument, it's just not an argument that I agree with.
I
think this whole "gay marriage" brouhaha completely misses the central
point: what legitimacy can a government lend to what is essentially an
agreement between two individuals? None, really -- there are
perquisites and benefits to that recognition, to be sure, but people
got along without those things for a long long time. As a civil matter,
the domestic arrangements of free citizens are primarly a matter of
contract law: who is responsible for what, who gets what if the
relationship ends, etc.
I think that gays really need to sit
down and think about what they really want from marriage. Or rather,
what they want from it that they can't already get from existing civil-union and contract law.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:41 PM (/0a60)
Apparently you excuse his death threat to me above too right? (see 40)
this blog is going off the rails quickly.
...and just to offset the inevitable Gabe-bashers...
I think Gabe is making a good argument, it's just not an argument that I agree with.
I
think this whole "gay marriage" brouhaha completely misses the central
point: what legitimacy can a government lend to what is essentially an
agreement between two individuals? None, really -- there are
perquisites and benefits to that recognition, to be sure, but people
got along without those things for a long long time. As a civil matter,
the domestic arrangements of free citizens are primarly a matter of
contract law: who is responsible for what, who gets what if the
relationship ends, etc.
I think that gays really need to sit
down and think about what they really want from marriage. Or rather,
what they want from it that they can't already get from existing civil-union and contract law.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:41 PM (/0a60)
Apparently you excuse his death threat to me above too right? (see 40)
this blog is going off the rails quickly.
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:44 PM (5r0Tz)
54
Marriage -- like parenting -- exists PRIOR to the State.
If the State can usurp marriage...what is next??
(I'll tell you. Liberal Fascism. It's a package deal.)
If the State can usurp marriage...what is next??
(I'll tell you. Liberal Fascism. It's a package deal.)
Posted by: Karl Marx at May 28, 2009 12:44 PM (AQj/2)
55
I agree with 35. Furthermore, Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with marriage. It has to do with the Perpetual need for acceptance on the part of Gay Militants. This is just another step along the agenda of homosexual activists. If they accomplish this, it will be one more arrow in their legal quiver to force the boy scouts to admit them, and to reduce the legal age of consent, and to SUE anyone that doesn't approve!
I agree with 35. Furthermore, Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with marriage. It has to do with the Perpetual need for acceptance on the part of Gay Militants. This is just another step along the agenda of homosexual activists. If they accomplish this, it will be one more arrow in their legal quiver to force the boy scouts to admit them, and to reduce the legal age of consent, and to SUE anyone that doesn't approve!
Posted by: Progress! at May 28, 2009 12:45 PM (EOnG1)
56
As for the biology remark, I will construe your attack on adopted children the way I would an attack on any child. You are a small-minded asshole. Die in a fire
Attack on a child? Come on...
Attack on a child? Come on...
Posted by: CJ at May 28, 2009 12:46 PM (9KqcB)
57
Apparently you excuse his death threat to me above too right? (see 40)
I don't AHFF, he was waaay out of line but prob. in character.
#55 - BINGO!!!
I don't AHFF, he was waaay out of line but prob. in character.
#55 - BINGO!!!
Posted by: teej at May 28, 2009 12:47 PM (lG7ds)
58
Apparently you excuse his death threat to me above too right? (see 40)
this blog is going off the rails quickly.
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:44 PM (5r0Tz)
That's an internet standard retort. Telling someone to die in a fire is a dismissal that you don't give a damn about them or their opinions. Gabe sure is getting his panties in a bunch though.
this blog is going off the rails quickly.
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:44 PM (5r0Tz)
That's an internet standard retort. Telling someone to die in a fire is a dismissal that you don't give a damn about them or their opinions. Gabe sure is getting his panties in a bunch though.
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 12:47 PM (Lrsi6)
59
AHFF: As you have seen, so many of us have bones to pick with Gabe on this issue, but that said, he's definitely not one of the commiefags who desecrate churches, threaten Mormons, smear beauty pageant contestants who disagree, etc. He's NOT like that.
We can take him to task without flying off the handle.
We can take him to task without flying off the handle.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 12:48 PM (ujg0T)
60
Opposition to gay marriage is non-negotiable for putative conservatives.
If the powers that be at AoSHQ don't get the message, I will stop reading this blog as I stopped reading Sully and LGF. Enough is enough already. This is lunacy.
If the powers that be at AoSHQ don't get the message, I will stop reading this blog as I stopped reading Sully and LGF. Enough is enough already. This is lunacy.
Posted by: JB at May 28, 2009 12:49 PM (xL7di)
61
As for marriage, the more I read about the horrors of the American Divorce Experience For Men, I think the gays can have it. How about we let divorced men keep some of their money and be able to visit their kids, stop forcing them to pay for kids that aren't biologically theirs, and punishing women who lie in divorce proceedings (the Lifetime TV effect).
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 28, 2009 12:49 PM (QxSug)
62
Apparently you excuse his death threat to me above too right?
As a rule, I'm in favor of death-threats. Not just to you, mind you, but in general.
As a rule, I'm in favor of death-threats. Not just to you, mind you, but in general.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:50 PM (/0a60)
63
Yeah teej, you tell 'em! After all, the Founders thought marriage was so important for the government to define and control that they ensured it was enshrined in the state and federal constitutions. Wait, they didn't? Huh, maybe they forgot, or maybe the printer lost that page or something. I mean, next we'll have the government not censoring people who say things the religious don't approve of, people being allowed to use drugs like ethanol, people who don't believe in Jesus getting elected, dogs and cats living together, total chaos!
On a tangential note, I assume you have no problems with government-endorsed polygamous marriages, correct? God seems to approve of them quite a bit, given all the men of God such as Jacob and David who engaged in them.
On a tangential note, I assume you have no problems with government-endorsed polygamous marriages, correct? God seems to approve of them quite a bit, given all the men of God such as Jacob and David who engaged in them.
Posted by: Slowking Man at May 28, 2009 12:50 PM (97WGL)
64
As hillary said to Obama, shame on you Gabe, Shame on You.
AHFF, you have my sincere apology for not recognizing your sarcasm. Given the comments of others, I assumed that you actually meant what you wrote, as it seems to be in line with other comments. In isolation, I can see that you might have been going for something else and I missed that. Sorry.
However, that you would construe "die in a fire" as an actual death threat? Weak. Sauce.
AHFF, you have my sincere apology for not recognizing your sarcasm. Given the comments of others, I assumed that you actually meant what you wrote, as it seems to be in line with other comments. In isolation, I can see that you might have been going for something else and I missed that. Sorry.
However, that you would construe "die in a fire" as an actual death threat? Weak. Sauce.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 28, 2009 12:50 PM (fKpiB)
65
i gonna make this real simple.
marriage is the union of one man and one woman, that's it
that's what the word means
you can claim up and down and every which way that that isn't so
it just is
get the State out of it, make the "civil union" the secular document that confers legal weight and put marriage back where it belongs; as a choice made by the individual citizen and their Church.
is that a left handed victory for secularists, yes
but it preserves what is left of the institution.
marriage is the union of one man and one woman, that's it
that's what the word means
you can claim up and down and every which way that that isn't so
it just is
get the State out of it, make the "civil union" the secular document that confers legal weight and put marriage back where it belongs; as a choice made by the individual citizen and their Church.
is that a left handed victory for secularists, yes
but it preserves what is left of the institution.
Posted by: shoey at May 28, 2009 12:52 PM (IRh55)
66
59
fair enough.
First time ive been threatened with death on a blog, and its just very sad it happened on this blog as i thought i was amongst civil morons.
fair enough.
First time ive been threatened with death on a blog, and its just very sad it happened on this blog as i thought i was amongst civil morons.
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:52 PM (5r0Tz)
67
It is sad as hell to watch a bunch of people I like yelling past each other. Way to listen to each other, guys.
Posted by: tmi3rd at May 28, 2009 12:52 PM (MLaAD)
68
and punishing women who lie in divorce proceedings (the Lifetime TV effect).
I divorced (fortunately without children), and that aspect of it was bad enough.
I honestly think that once kids are in the mix, we, men and women alike,are *obligated* to stay in the marriage and make the best of it, barring some really extreme circumstances.
I divorced (fortunately without children), and that aspect of it was bad enough.
I honestly think that once kids are in the mix, we, men and women alike,are *obligated* to stay in the marriage and make the best of it, barring some really extreme circumstances.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 12:53 PM (ujg0T)
69
However, that you would construe "die in a fire" as an actual death threat? Weak. Sauce.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 28, 2009 12:50 PM (fKpiB)
FUCK OFF.
(note i did not append the above with "and die" as i wish death upon noone, unlike you.)
However, that you would construe "die in a fire" as an actual death threat? Weak. Sauce.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 28, 2009 12:50 PM (fKpiB)
FUCK OFF.
(note i did not append the above with "and die" as i wish death upon noone, unlike you.)
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:53 PM (5r0Tz)
70
In my opinion Gabe was making a variation of the ole "Eat Sh*t and Die!" line. Not a threat, just a signal that he has no further use for you.
Posted by: Progress! at May 28, 2009 12:54 PM (EOnG1)
71
It is sad as hell to watch a bunch of people I like yelling past each other.
Huh. Really? I find it quite entertaining. It's just too bad that, unlike at some wedding receptions and bar mitzvahs I've been to, it won't end up in drunken fisticuffs.
Then we could all make up and pub-crawl until dawn.
It is sad as hell to watch a bunch of people I like yelling past each other.
Huh. Really? I find it quite entertaining. It's just too bad that, unlike at some wedding receptions and bar mitzvahs I've been to, it won't end up in drunken fisticuffs.
Then we could all make up and pub-crawl until dawn.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:55 PM (/0a60)
72
okay, everyone seems to think its cool to tell someone to "die in a fire"
i guess im just out of touch.
my bad, hasta la vista.
i guess im just out of touch.
my bad, hasta la vista.
Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at May 28, 2009 12:56 PM (5r0Tz)
73
>>God seems to approve of them quite a bit, given all the men of God such as Jacob and David who engaged in them.
Sure... and David raped. Ergo God approves rape too.
Plus all that stuff that Jesus said.
How can you destroy the church when you haven't even bothered to read their books?
Those of the Pink Swastikas knew how to do this better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika
Sure... and David raped. Ergo God approves rape too.
Plus all that stuff that Jesus said.
How can you destroy the church when you haven't even bothered to read their books?
Those of the Pink Swastikas knew how to do this better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika
Posted by: Karl Marx at May 28, 2009 12:56 PM (AQj/2)
74
You can pick your friends. You can't pick your family.
My family sure as hell picked me. I am not denying that my DNA was contributed by those who are other than my parents. That is a True Fact. Nor would I deny that my genetics contribute to who I am, from the massive lack of height and, from what neurobiology is revealing, much of my personality. That's all fine.
But I do distinguish that from their being my *family*. They simply aren't, not in any way that I recognize. I will concede that my use of the term is a bit idiosyncratic. My family consists of those who raised me and my brother. That's it. I reject the concept that there is some type of mystical connection to the egg and sperm donors.
Now, my brother, who is also adopted, does not necessarily share my views on this. So do several other adopted children I know. Thus, it's entirely possible that I'm not thoroughly in the right. But I've had numerous people say things like "oh do you want to know about your real parents?" with the underlying assumption that the biology trumps the adoptive relationship. That makes me very very angry indeed. Not that you're doing that, mind, just trying to give context to my opinion.
My family sure as hell picked me. I am not denying that my DNA was contributed by those who are other than my parents. That is a True Fact. Nor would I deny that my genetics contribute to who I am, from the massive lack of height and, from what neurobiology is revealing, much of my personality. That's all fine.
But I do distinguish that from their being my *family*. They simply aren't, not in any way that I recognize. I will concede that my use of the term is a bit idiosyncratic. My family consists of those who raised me and my brother. That's it. I reject the concept that there is some type of mystical connection to the egg and sperm donors.
Now, my brother, who is also adopted, does not necessarily share my views on this. So do several other adopted children I know. Thus, it's entirely possible that I'm not thoroughly in the right. But I've had numerous people say things like "oh do you want to know about your real parents?" with the underlying assumption that the biology trumps the adoptive relationship. That makes me very very angry indeed. Not that you're doing that, mind, just trying to give context to my opinion.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 28, 2009 12:58 PM (SHHaV)
75
AHHF do you think people are giving you a death threat if they tell you to go jump off a cliff, ortake walk in busy traffic? Come on its not a death threat. Now if Gabe had said he was going to set you on fire, that would be a threat.You don't have to be that thin skinned you know.
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 01:00 PM (Lrsi6)
76
okay, everyone seems to think its cool to tell someone to "die in a fire"
Well, not everyone. My elderly neighbor would probably be scandalized by it. But most of my friends (who are, admittedly, not exactly members of the Algonquin Round Table) generally find it le bon mot in certain situations.
Monty: Ted, grab me a Coke while you're in the kitchen, willya?
Ted: Aw, die in a fire, shitbird! What, are your fuckin' legs busted?
Monty: Hand me that deep-well socket, will you, Mike?
Mike: When you drink my ball-sweat, dickweed. Die in fire, you lazy asshole! What am I, your garage monkey?
I guess it has to do with body language, voice inflection, and other nonverbal cues.
Well, not everyone. My elderly neighbor would probably be scandalized by it. But most of my friends (who are, admittedly, not exactly members of the Algonquin Round Table) generally find it le bon mot in certain situations.
Monty: Ted, grab me a Coke while you're in the kitchen, willya?
Ted: Aw, die in a fire, shitbird! What, are your fuckin' legs busted?
Monty: Hand me that deep-well socket, will you, Mike?
Mike: When you drink my ball-sweat, dickweed. Die in fire, you lazy asshole! What am I, your garage monkey?
I guess it has to do with body language, voice inflection, and other nonverbal cues.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 01:00 PM (/0a60)
77
Sincere question(s) here, not snark...
Can someone explain to me what the difference is between government being in the marriage business and government being in the "civil union" business?
Aren't we talking about the *exact same thing*, only calling it something different?
Are people suggesting that a couple will now get married in a Church in order to be able to say they are married, but then will go through the government to get "civil union" benefits (formerly marriage benefits)?
So instead of the government being in the marriage business, they will simply grant the exact same benefits and such, only it will be called a "civil union" business?
How is that getting the government out of anything? It is still "in the marriage business", but we're just changing it to "civil union business".
I'm not following how this gets the government out of the marriage business?
Will couples married in the Church simply go to the government to get a "civil union" license instead of a marriage license?
Can someone explain to me what the difference is between government being in the marriage business and government being in the "civil union" business?
Aren't we talking about the *exact same thing*, only calling it something different?
Are people suggesting that a couple will now get married in a Church in order to be able to say they are married, but then will go through the government to get "civil union" benefits (formerly marriage benefits)?
So instead of the government being in the marriage business, they will simply grant the exact same benefits and such, only it will be called a "civil union" business?
How is that getting the government out of anything? It is still "in the marriage business", but we're just changing it to "civil union business".
I'm not following how this gets the government out of the marriage business?
Will couples married in the Church simply go to the government to get a "civil union" license instead of a marriage license?
Posted by: Michael in MI at May 28, 2009 01:03 PM (ObTcs)
78
Not that you're doing that, mind, just trying to give context to my opinion.
Oh, no, I gotcha. I was never much tempted to go look up my old man. Fuck him with a barge-pole, that's my position.
Oh, no, I gotcha. I was never much tempted to go look up my old man. Fuck him with a barge-pole, that's my position.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 01:05 PM (/0a60)
79
I reject the concept that there is some type of mystical connection to the egg and sperm donors.
I don't think there's anything mystical about biology and DNA. You may not feel there is any connection to your biological parents, but that doesn't nullify the ones that do actually exist.
I don't think there's anything mystical about biology and DNA. You may not feel there is any connection to your biological parents, but that doesn't nullify the ones that do actually exist.
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 01:07 PM (Lrsi6)
80
Government recognition of "marriage" these days amounts to recognition of contract law. So just make it official and conduct the whole affair as contract law.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:24 PM (/0a60)
I've been meaning to ask those who support the "get government out of marriage" concept what your thoughts are about tax implications? Would you support removing deductions for dependent children, for example?
Why should government subsidize raising kids? It's a choice to do so in this society -- why do my tax dollars have to subsidize that?
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 12:24 PM (/0a60)
I've been meaning to ask those who support the "get government out of marriage" concept what your thoughts are about tax implications? Would you support removing deductions for dependent children, for example?
Why should government subsidize raising kids? It's a choice to do so in this society -- why do my tax dollars have to subsidize that?
Posted by: Y-not at May 28, 2009 01:09 PM (sey23)
81
77
Because "marriage" is a termreferring toa sacred institution made such by almighty God.
A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
It ain't the same thing.
Because "marriage" is a termreferring toa sacred institution made such by almighty God.
A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
It ain't the same thing.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 01:10 PM (b68Df)
82
okay, everyone seems to think its cool to tell someone to "die in a fire"Well,
not everyone. My elderly neighbor would probably be scandalized by it.
But most of my friends (who are, admittedly, not exactly members of the
Algonquin Round Table) generally find it le bon mot in certain
situations.
I prefer "Die at Christmas Dinner."
not everyone. My elderly neighbor would probably be scandalized by it.
But most of my friends (who are, admittedly, not exactly members of the
Algonquin Round Table) generally find it le bon mot in certain
situations.
I prefer "Die at Christmas Dinner."
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 01:13 PM (xWk3U)
83
>> #39
I'm fine with them as long as it's respected within the confines of the religious institution & matters. That and all parties enter into it willingly.
If it's not illegal (and by that I mean nobody is being enslaved/beaten/tortured/etc) the gov't really has no business in the matter.
I'm fine with them as long as it's respected within the confines of the religious institution & matters. That and all parties enter into it willingly.
If it's not illegal (and by that I mean nobody is being enslaved/beaten/tortured/etc) the gov't really has no business in the matter.
Posted by: aimsworth at May 28, 2009 01:14 PM (COlx6)
84
>>A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
What the hell makes "two-ness" so damn special?
What the hell makes "two-ness" so damn special?
Posted by: 50000 years of evolution at May 28, 2009 01:14 PM (AQj/2)
85
Why should government subsidize raising kids? It's a choice to do so in this society -- why do my tax dollars have to subsidize that?
1. Because your pensions depend upon it, and not just Social Security (sic) either.
2. Because as Mark Steyn put it in "America Alone": "The future belongs to those who show up for it." The Euros are learning this the hard way. And the bloodthirsty Islamunists know this all too well.
3. Because the penalties and obstacles to raising kids --moer often than not imposed by the government --are onerous enough as it is.
1. Because your pensions depend upon it, and not just Social Security (sic) either.
2. Because as Mark Steyn put it in "America Alone": "The future belongs to those who show up for it." The Euros are learning this the hard way. And the bloodthirsty Islamunists know this all too well.
3. Because the penalties and obstacles to raising kids --moer often than not imposed by the government --are onerous enough as it is.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 01:15 PM (ujg0T)
86
Because "marriage" is a termreferring toa sacred institution made such by almighty God.
A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
It ain't the same thing.
If it were, the point would be moot for those gay activists trying togain acceptance of"real" marriage.
A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
It ain't the same thing.
If it were, the point would be moot for those gay activists trying togain acceptance of"real" marriage.
Posted by: Roy at May 28, 2009 01:17 PM (cB77O)
87
Also, with regards to same-sex couples adopting children...
Doesn't the allowance of same-sex couples adopting children basically imply that either a mother or a father is irrelevant to the raising of a child (since a same-sex couple with obviously not have one or the other)? We are basically saying now that a child simply needs two adults, not a mom and dad, both male and female influences in their life, but simply two adults.
Doesn't this basically say that our society has now bought into the lie that there is no difference between men and women, mothers and fathers?
And, if we are going to say that, then this would seem to mean that we should have adoption agencies open up their options to singles. Since the old view that the best place for a child is with a mother and father is now apparently outdated?
Doesn't the allowance of same-sex couples adopting children basically imply that either a mother or a father is irrelevant to the raising of a child (since a same-sex couple with obviously not have one or the other)? We are basically saying now that a child simply needs two adults, not a mom and dad, both male and female influences in their life, but simply two adults.
Doesn't this basically say that our society has now bought into the lie that there is no difference between men and women, mothers and fathers?
And, if we are going to say that, then this would seem to mean that we should have adoption agencies open up their options to singles. Since the old view that the best place for a child is with a mother and father is now apparently outdated?
Posted by: Michael in MI at May 28, 2009 01:17 PM (ObTcs)
88
I’ve been hearing ‘slippery slope’ ever since the 70-s and the ERA, which is why we have unisex bathrooms and—oh, wait, none of that stuff ever happened, even though women have pretty much equal rights as men.
Which is why the ‘slippery slope’ argument is completely bogus.
Which is why the ‘slippery slope’ argument is completely bogus.
Posted by: JEA at May 28, 2009 01:17 PM (WGbtD)
89
So, Curmudgeon, are you saying that it's "good for society" to have kids?
It just seems to me that by that argument, it's equally true that the benefits to society of encouraging a one man one woman marriage, which has the potential of producing new children (as opposed to non-traditional families raising adopted kids) should also fall in the government's interests.
It just seems to me that by that argument, it's equally true that the benefits to society of encouraging a one man one woman marriage, which has the potential of producing new children (as opposed to non-traditional families raising adopted kids) should also fall in the government's interests.
Posted by: Y-not at May 28, 2009 01:21 PM (sey23)
90
I know a gay couple who adopted a baby girl with some serious health and mental disabilities. What does anybody think her chances of being adopted by a straight couple were?
Posted by: JEA at May 28, 2009 01:24 PM (WGbtD)
91
So, Curmudgeon, are you saying that it's "good for society" to have kids? It just seems to me that by that argument, it's equally true that the benefits to society of encouraging a one man one woman marriage, which has the potential of producing new children (as opposed to non-traditional families raising adopted kids) should also fall in the government's interests.
Bingo! I have been disagreeing with Gabe for a reason. Given the MUCH higherprobability offunctional adults coming from one man and one womanmarriages, and the converse from any other kinds of relationships, I must certainly agree.
Bingo! I have been disagreeing with Gabe for a reason. Given the MUCH higherprobability offunctional adults coming from one man and one womanmarriages, and the converse from any other kinds of relationships, I must certainly agree.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 01:25 PM (ujg0T)
92
>>Posted by: Michael in MI at May 28, 2009 01:17 PM (ObTcs)
I've often thought the same thing. My dad studied child psychology and my recollection from talking with him is that there are a lot of critical times in child development where having two parents of different genders seems important. Obviously, that can't always be the case, but it seems as though people are awfully cavalier with how our next generation of kids are being raised in the interests of social engineering. Sometimes there's just biology at work.
I've often thought the same thing. My dad studied child psychology and my recollection from talking with him is that there are a lot of critical times in child development where having two parents of different genders seems important. Obviously, that can't always be the case, but it seems as though people are awfully cavalier with how our next generation of kids are being raised in the interests of social engineering. Sometimes there's just biology at work.
Posted by: Y-not at May 28, 2009 01:25 PM (sey23)
93
"I know a gay couple who adopted a baby girl with some serious health
and mental disabilities. What does anybody think her chances of being
adopted by a straight couple were?"
Exactly the same. Dear LORD, what a fucking disgusting asshat bigoted comment that was. YOU die in a fire, asshat.
Qwinn
and mental disabilities. What does anybody think her chances of being
adopted by a straight couple were?"
Exactly the same. Dear LORD, what a fucking disgusting asshat bigoted comment that was. YOU die in a fire, asshat.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 01:28 PM (/y1J0)
94
The only reason the state ever got into the marriage business in the first place was to prevent blacks and whites marrying. Why do you think they started requiring a "license" to begin with.
Posted by: CTD at May 28, 2009 01:29 PM (RurGt)
95
My family sure as hell picked me.
And best wishes to them. But Qwinn is, and I am, bettingthat there is no way that a dad-dad-child or mom-mom-child adoptive relationship can similarly emulate the actual blood familial relationship, in the way that the dad-mom-child adoptive relationship can.
And best wishes to them. But Qwinn is, and I am, bettingthat there is no way that a dad-dad-child or mom-mom-child adoptive relationship can similarly emulate the actual blood familial relationship, in the way that the dad-mom-child adoptive relationship can.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 01:30 PM (ujg0T)
96
I'm willing to compromise. Let's just get the federal government out of the marriage business. Middle ground!
Posted by: JohnJ at May 28, 2009 01:32 PM (xEily)
97
And Gabe, this makes no sense:
Either marriage is important enough for society--most clearly
represented by its laws--to encourage. Or it's not. Taking away
government recognition of marriage as it has been understood to operate
for some time now can only ever be recognized as a retreat,
That's like saying the states' issuance of driver licenses is what makes people want to drive.
Either marriage is important enough for society--most clearly
represented by its laws--to encourage. Or it's not. Taking away
government recognition of marriage as it has been understood to operate
for some time now can only ever be recognized as a retreat,
That's like saying the states' issuance of driver licenses is what makes people want to drive.
Posted by: CTD at May 28, 2009 01:33 PM (RurGt)
98
Fuck Doug Kmiec. He was one of those oh-so-nuanced "conservatives" who voted for Obama and then twisted himself into such grotesque knots trying to justify his vote, that the Circus Contortionists Union filed a lawsuit against him for trade infringement.
Posted by: OregonMuse at May 28, 2009 01:35 PM (wQE87)
99
Gabe, and others who think along the libertarian lines about getting government out of marriage, think again. Gay marriage destroys marriage as an institution. You aren't going to strengthen it or preserve it with gay marriage. Quite the opposite. The libertarian take is seductive, and generally sound, but not in this case. Marriage and families must be strengthened as institutions in this country if this society hopes to have any continued claim on viability over time. Gay marriage is far graver threat than most people realize - it seems equitable, the arguments are couched around natural rights in a way that makes sense, what is the harm?
Lookout: the downside is enormous. It is indeed a Trojan Horse.
Lookout: the downside is enormous. It is indeed a Trojan Horse.
Posted by: Cowboy at May 28, 2009 01:36 PM (odnDW)
100
not least of which are the stabilizing effect marriage has on
relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see
gay people as a part of that.
Gabe, if the relationship was not stable before, 'marriage' is not going to do it. The fact is that gay activists don't want to change their behaviors, they want us to accept their behaviors as they are and change marriage.
It is proven that children do best with the complementing interactions between and with their mothers AND fathers. Yeah, marital relationships fail nearly 50% of the time - resulting in those children put at risk - but 50% of the time, they don't.
Let's look at the relationships of gays. They, in general, are less stable due to the nature of their high risk behavior...number of partners, resulting rates of STDs, domestic, alcohol, drug abuses. No, not all gays are sleazy but a goodly percentage sure make it look bad for them.
relationships between adults and their children. I would like to see
gay people as a part of that.
Gabe, if the relationship was not stable before, 'marriage' is not going to do it. The fact is that gay activists don't want to change their behaviors, they want us to accept their behaviors as they are and change marriage.
It is proven that children do best with the complementing interactions between and with their mothers AND fathers. Yeah, marital relationships fail nearly 50% of the time - resulting in those children put at risk - but 50% of the time, they don't.
Let's look at the relationships of gays. They, in general, are less stable due to the nature of their high risk behavior...number of partners, resulting rates of STDs, domestic, alcohol, drug abuses. No, not all gays are sleazy but a goodly percentage sure make it look bad for them.
Posted by: porknbeasn at May 28, 2009 01:36 PM (NWZhH)
101
Because "marriage" is a term referring to a sacred institution made such by almighty God.
A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
It ain't the same thing."
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 01:10 PM
Well, right now the government has "marriage licenses". People do not have to go to a church to get "married". They can simply go to the Justice of the Peace (JOP). My cousin and his current wife did that after his first marriage (conducted in a Church, the whole nine yards...) ended extremely poorly. So they decided they didn't want a big ceremony, just a JOP trip and a nice party at home.
Are you saying that now -- we they to have done this with the government out of the marriage business -- my cousin and his wife would not be recognized as "married" but instead would simply be "civil unioned" and, if they wanted to be able to say they are "married", they would have to go through a ceremony at a Church?
A civil union is a partnership between two people made such by the not so almighty state.
It ain't the same thing."
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 01:10 PM
Well, right now the government has "marriage licenses". People do not have to go to a church to get "married". They can simply go to the Justice of the Peace (JOP). My cousin and his current wife did that after his first marriage (conducted in a Church, the whole nine yards...) ended extremely poorly. So they decided they didn't want a big ceremony, just a JOP trip and a nice party at home.
Are you saying that now -- we they to have done this with the government out of the marriage business -- my cousin and his wife would not be recognized as "married" but instead would simply be "civil unioned" and, if they wanted to be able to say they are "married", they would have to go through a ceremony at a Church?
Posted by: Michael in MI at May 28, 2009 01:36 PM (ObTcs)
Posted by: JEA at May 28, 2009 01:37 PM (WGbtD)
103
I have been told that gay people cannot have children. That is one of the dumber things I've heard today.
You're an idiot. Gay couples cannot have children They can possess children, but they are unable to produce them. And their sexual perversion is damaging to the children's ethical and spiritual upbringing, which is at least as important as their physical.
You're an idiot. Gay couples cannot have children They can possess children, but they are unable to produce them. And their sexual perversion is damaging to the children's ethical and spiritual upbringing, which is at least as important as their physical.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 28, 2009 01:38 PM (PQY7w)
104
There are thousands of committed, long-term gay couples raising children in the United States. Those children are every bit in need of the same legal protections and status as the children of married straight couples.
What protections do the children of parents in domestic partnerships lack? And, can't we just give those to them?
What protections do the children of parents in domestic partnerships lack? And, can't we just give those to them?
Posted by: Y-not at May 28, 2009 01:39 PM (sey23)
105
Gabe, and others who think along the libertarian lines about getting government out of marriage, think again.
Obviously you didn't read my post. I oppose getting government out of marriage.
Obviously you didn't read my post. I oppose getting government out of marriage.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 28, 2009 01:41 PM (fKpiB)
106
The assumption by everyone on both sides of the issue of gay marriage is that the government has any business making such decisions or even 'legalizing' portions of an American citizen's private life.
The slippery slope for the religiously-minded is that the government also has the right to regulate religious doctrines and teachings, which has effectively been achieved through the 501(c)3. The slippery slope for everyone else is that the government thus gains the right to determine what is best for the citizens of America wrt other issues, such as gun control or motorcycle helmet laws or even the intake of saturated fats. other issues also come into play, such as s.787, which will regulate every drop of water in the nation as well as access to that water and the ground it is on or in...including private wells, private ponds, and even buffalo wallows. Once you've given government the authority to interfere in your private lives or in the private lives of others, you've embraced tyranny and slavery.
There's nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government the right to make such a
determination about marriage, and very little in any state constitution that gives the states such a 'right.' The right of freedom of association, and thus the right of co-habitation, are left to the people involved.
Yet, both sides of the issue continually invoke the
government or the law in order to influence and control
the private lives of other citizens...while rightfully - and quite correctly - accusing one another of fascism. Then, both sides turn around and bewail the loss of freedom in America.
Insane, isn't it.
The slippery slope for the religiously-minded is that the government also has the right to regulate religious doctrines and teachings, which has effectively been achieved through the 501(c)3. The slippery slope for everyone else is that the government thus gains the right to determine what is best for the citizens of America wrt other issues, such as gun control or motorcycle helmet laws or even the intake of saturated fats. other issues also come into play, such as s.787, which will regulate every drop of water in the nation as well as access to that water and the ground it is on or in...including private wells, private ponds, and even buffalo wallows. Once you've given government the authority to interfere in your private lives or in the private lives of others, you've embraced tyranny and slavery.
There's nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government the right to make such a
determination about marriage, and very little in any state constitution that gives the states such a 'right.' The right of freedom of association, and thus the right of co-habitation, are left to the people involved.
Yet, both sides of the issue continually invoke the
government or the law in order to influence and control
the private lives of other citizens...while rightfully - and quite correctly - accusing one another of fascism. Then, both sides turn around and bewail the loss of freedom in America.
Insane, isn't it.
Posted by: Cigarette Man at May 28, 2009 01:44 PM (FoHqy)
107
Marriage and families must be strengthened as institutions in this country if this society hopes to have any continued claim on viability over time.
Cowboy explain how having government invlovement is strengthening marriage. And why is it necessary to have the government recognize your union, either straight or gay?
Are you saying that now -- we they to have done this with the government out of the marriage business -- my cousin and his wife would not be recognized as "married" but instead would simply be "civil unioned" and, if they wanted to be able to say they are "married", they would have to go through a ceremony at a Church?
Michael in Mi,
In the legal sense yes they would be civil unioned and not married. But really is anyone going to raise a stink if they do refer to themselves as married or husband and wife? And they could still have some small simple ceremony not in a church. The same thing goes for gay couples. There is nothing out there preventing two gay men from getting all their friends and family together standing in front of another person, exchanging rings and declaring their love for eachother. Its just not likely to be recognized in the legal sense by most states. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Does that mean they are going to be arrested if they say they are married? Is someone going to raise a stink if they do that? And if they did why would they want to associate with a nitpicking prick anyways?
Cowboy explain how having government invlovement is strengthening marriage. And why is it necessary to have the government recognize your union, either straight or gay?
Are you saying that now -- we they to have done this with the government out of the marriage business -- my cousin and his wife would not be recognized as "married" but instead would simply be "civil unioned" and, if they wanted to be able to say they are "married", they would have to go through a ceremony at a Church?
Michael in Mi,
In the legal sense yes they would be civil unioned and not married. But really is anyone going to raise a stink if they do refer to themselves as married or husband and wife? And they could still have some small simple ceremony not in a church. The same thing goes for gay couples. There is nothing out there preventing two gay men from getting all their friends and family together standing in front of another person, exchanging rings and declaring their love for eachother. Its just not likely to be recognized in the legal sense by most states. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Does that mean they are going to be arrested if they say they are married? Is someone going to raise a stink if they do that? And if they did why would they want to associate with a nitpicking prick anyways?
Posted by: buzzion at May 28, 2009 01:45 PM (Lrsi6)
108
For a while I was supportive of the "civil unions" thing. And for another while I could get behind the "get government out of marriage" thing.
Then I realized, that was surrender. No. Screw that. We -need- one-man one-woman marriage to be the single most praised, most exceptional, most accepted unit for our society to be based around, because we need kids to grow in normal healthy societies. Period. 10000+ years of human history have understood this, even ones that were tolerant of homosexuality.
Liberals think they are so enlightened. Between this idiotic position that seeks to dismantle the core unit of civilization in order to elevate their sterile sexual fetishes as equally important and laudable to the continuation of the culture and the species, and with their worship of abortion-on-demand... seriously, I can't think of any culture less enlightened or more contemptible than the modern social liberal.
Qwinn
Then I realized, that was surrender. No. Screw that. We -need- one-man one-woman marriage to be the single most praised, most exceptional, most accepted unit for our society to be based around, because we need kids to grow in normal healthy societies. Period. 10000+ years of human history have understood this, even ones that were tolerant of homosexuality.
Liberals think they are so enlightened. Between this idiotic position that seeks to dismantle the core unit of civilization in order to elevate their sterile sexual fetishes as equally important and laudable to the continuation of the culture and the species, and with their worship of abortion-on-demand... seriously, I can't think of any culture less enlightened or more contemptible than the modern social liberal.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 01:47 PM (/y1J0)
109
You may not feel there is any connection to your biological parents, but that doesn't nullify the ones that do actually exist.
Oh, no, I didn't mean that at all. Sorry, I should have been clearer on that point.
But Qwinn is, and I am, bettingthat there is no way that a
dad-dad-child or mom-mom-child adoptive relationship can similarly
emulate the actual blood familial relationship, in the way that the
dad-mom-child adoptive relationship can.
I don't want y'all to think I'm ignoring that point, though I sort of am, but I don't necessarily disagree. I haven't developed an articulate position on that, other than that I think that a mother father are the best option for children but a loving family, however constituted, is better than nothing. I am, obviously, in favor of adoption fairly strongly which makes me somewhat inclined to be in favor of gay adoption. I freely admit my views on this are inconsistent. Thus I'm going to Brave Sir Robin and run away from that argument.
Now, I think making the Catholic Charities walk from the adoption business in MA is complete and utter bullshit. That I do care about a great deal because of the implications for religious freedom.
Oh, no, I didn't mean that at all. Sorry, I should have been clearer on that point.
But Qwinn is, and I am, bettingthat there is no way that a
dad-dad-child or mom-mom-child adoptive relationship can similarly
emulate the actual blood familial relationship, in the way that the
dad-mom-child adoptive relationship can.
I don't want y'all to think I'm ignoring that point, though I sort of am, but I don't necessarily disagree. I haven't developed an articulate position on that, other than that I think that a mother father are the best option for children but a loving family, however constituted, is better than nothing. I am, obviously, in favor of adoption fairly strongly which makes me somewhat inclined to be in favor of gay adoption. I freely admit my views on this are inconsistent. Thus I'm going to Brave Sir Robin and run away from that argument.
Now, I think making the Catholic Charities walk from the adoption business in MA is complete and utter bullshit. That I do care about a great deal because of the implications for religious freedom.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 28, 2009 01:48 PM (SHHaV)
110
Kmiec is a lefty. Morrissey is a squish. So pardon me if I don't see this as evidence of some tectonic shift in opinion on the right.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 01:50 PM (Gzy97)
111
I'm tellin' ya Monty, you have to start your own blog. Or convince Ace to let you post new threads.
Posted by: George Orwell at May 28, 2009 01:53 PM (6uMRO)
112
Thus I'm going to Brave Sir Robin and run away from that argument.
They were forced to eat Sir Robin's minstrels...and there was much rejoicing....
They were forced to eat Sir Robin's minstrels...and there was much rejoicing....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 28, 2009 01:53 PM (ujg0T)
113
>>"Gay marriage destroys marriage as an institution."
I keep hearing that. How exactly?
How? Answer: Tutto Nello Stato, Niente Al Di Fuori Dello Stato
It gives the State to power to define "marriage" -- wheres marriage exists prior to the State.
I keep hearing that. How exactly?
How? Answer: Tutto Nello Stato, Niente Al Di Fuori Dello Stato
It gives the State to power to define "marriage" -- wheres marriage exists prior to the State.
Posted by: T at May 28, 2009 01:54 PM (AQj/2)
114
Government doesn't sanctify marriage. Government doesn't define marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman does not owe its existence to government, and it will not be likely to vanish due to any changes in government.
Marriage came first. Then government recognized it. What government needs to recognize now is that people should have the right to determine their next of kin, and to enter into financial interdependence with whomever they want. These rights have nothing to do with sex, love, or children, and they're more or less the only things that government recognizes about marriage.
Marriage came first. Then government recognized it. What government needs to recognize now is that people should have the right to determine their next of kin, and to enter into financial interdependence with whomever they want. These rights have nothing to do with sex, love, or children, and they're more or less the only things that government recognizes about marriage.
Posted by: Original Roy at May 28, 2009 01:58 PM (jV0wG)
115
How about, as far as the government is concerned, it's JUST a
contract? And any competant person can make a contract, gay or
straight is irrelevant.
If it is "just a contact", then there is no reason any hundred people cannot make one. Or thousand, or million.
Marriage has little to do with what any two people want. All civilised societies have marriage because it serves the best interest of the society.
Does "gay marriage" serve the interests of society? I've never seen a case that it does. If anybody can make that case then I'll sign on to the cause.
contract? And any competant person can make a contract, gay or
straight is irrelevant.
If it is "just a contact", then there is no reason any hundred people cannot make one. Or thousand, or million.
Marriage has little to do with what any two people want. All civilised societies have marriage because it serves the best interest of the society.
Does "gay marriage" serve the interests of society? I've never seen a case that it does. If anybody can make that case then I'll sign on to the cause.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 01:58 PM (Gzy97)
Posted by: carl at May 28, 2009 01:58 PM (EX+6L)
117
I'm tellin' ya Monty, you have to start your own blog. Or convince Ace to let you post new threads.
Meh. I've thought about setting up my own site, but Ace is my muse. I used to run a blog, and about 90% of my stuff was utter crap, boring even to me. Someday I might get motivated and set up a website, but it won't be a blog. More like just a personal site where I put up revealing photos, embarassing personal details, pictures of my guns, and the occasional essay or screed. But for this I'd need the whole complicated hooraw of a hosting company, domain registration, etc. I'm not sure I want to put that kind of time into it just yet.
As for letting me post threads...Ace's present crew does a fine job. I doubt I could add much.
Meh. I've thought about setting up my own site, but Ace is my muse. I used to run a blog, and about 90% of my stuff was utter crap, boring even to me. Someday I might get motivated and set up a website, but it won't be a blog. More like just a personal site where I put up revealing photos, embarassing personal details, pictures of my guns, and the occasional essay or screed. But for this I'd need the whole complicated hooraw of a hosting company, domain registration, etc. I'm not sure I want to put that kind of time into it just yet.
As for letting me post threads...Ace's present crew does a fine job. I doubt I could add much.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 01:59 PM (/0a60)
118
Marriage has little to do with what any two people want. All civilised
societies have marriage because it serves the best interest of the
society.
In theory.
In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, they differ.
societies have marriage because it serves the best interest of the
society.
In theory.
In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, they differ.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 02:00 PM (/0a60)
119
All of you who do not want the government out of the marriage business have nothing to worry about. It is highly unlikely in the Age Obama that we will get the government “out” of anything.
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2009 02:02 PM (BYokb)
120
the only reason the state ever got into the marriage business in the
first place was to prevent blacks and whites marrying. Why do you think
they started requiring a "license" to begin with.
Ah, that must be why there is no state marriage in those countries without black people. You learn something new every day here.
first place was to prevent blacks and whites marrying. Why do you think
they started requiring a "license" to begin with.
Ah, that must be why there is no state marriage in those countries without black people. You learn something new every day here.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:04 PM (Gzy97)
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:05 PM (Gzy97)
122
Gabriel,
I have to disagree. The origin of marriage, as the west has come to know it, is from Greek traditions. The purpose being reproductive responsibility, and presenting a stable platform, based on the biological parents, where children can be raised. I strongly believe this institution, of upbringing based on the loving committed relationship between the biological parents of children, is unique, still has no equal in the upbringing of children, is of great benefit to society, ought to be encouraged, and deserves a special name. Even the Greeks, from which the tradition began, whom also accepted homosexual relationships as an often regular part of being, shared the same sentiment; That special bond between a father and mother deserved to be placed on a special pedestal.
Strangely many believe that words define things, in fact it is just the opposite. If homosexual unions come to be known as marriage, it is not the homosexual union that has changed but the definition of marriage. Most likely what we now know as marriage will then find a different term to describe itself such as the ever popular "Traditional Marriage". So in essence whether homosexual unions are unified with heterosexual unions under the term marriage, or, the State revises it's regulation of relationships to the unifying "domestic partnership" or similar, the result is exactly the same. The State is saying quite clearly, that the special unique relationship that I spoke of above, is neither special nor unique, nor does it need to be encouraged any longer as the preferred environment for raising children, nor does it deserve special recognition by the State.
Sound arguments have been made that, that has already occurred anyway. But regardless, I think that, if this is the course we choose to reconcile the rights of homosexual relationships, that we simply stop using the word marriage, rather than pretend that we can change the nature of something by changing its name. And leave alone, the definition of a word, that is as old as the English language itself, and respect the concept which is as old as civilized society.
I have to disagree. The origin of marriage, as the west has come to know it, is from Greek traditions. The purpose being reproductive responsibility, and presenting a stable platform, based on the biological parents, where children can be raised. I strongly believe this institution, of upbringing based on the loving committed relationship between the biological parents of children, is unique, still has no equal in the upbringing of children, is of great benefit to society, ought to be encouraged, and deserves a special name. Even the Greeks, from which the tradition began, whom also accepted homosexual relationships as an often regular part of being, shared the same sentiment; That special bond between a father and mother deserved to be placed on a special pedestal.
Strangely many believe that words define things, in fact it is just the opposite. If homosexual unions come to be known as marriage, it is not the homosexual union that has changed but the definition of marriage. Most likely what we now know as marriage will then find a different term to describe itself such as the ever popular "Traditional Marriage". So in essence whether homosexual unions are unified with heterosexual unions under the term marriage, or, the State revises it's regulation of relationships to the unifying "domestic partnership" or similar, the result is exactly the same. The State is saying quite clearly, that the special unique relationship that I spoke of above, is neither special nor unique, nor does it need to be encouraged any longer as the preferred environment for raising children, nor does it deserve special recognition by the State.
Sound arguments have been made that, that has already occurred anyway. But regardless, I think that, if this is the course we choose to reconcile the rights of homosexual relationships, that we simply stop using the word marriage, rather than pretend that we can change the nature of something by changing its name. And leave alone, the definition of a word, that is as old as the English language itself, and respect the concept which is as old as civilized society.
Posted by: Michael C Keehn at May 28, 2009 02:06 PM (0q2P7)
123
I think this whole "gay marriage" brouhaha completely misses the
central point: what legitimacy can a government lend to what is
essentially an agreement between two individuals?
It is not an agreement between two individuals. No contact is that, but marriage least of all. It is an agreement between two individuals and the society they live in.
Two (or more) individuals can make whatever "contract" they like. The problem arises when they expect everybody else to consider it as having legal force. That's why a contract is between everybody.
central point: what legitimacy can a government lend to what is
essentially an agreement between two individuals?
It is not an agreement between two individuals. No contact is that, but marriage least of all. It is an agreement between two individuals and the society they live in.
Two (or more) individuals can make whatever "contract" they like. The problem arises when they expect everybody else to consider it as having legal force. That's why a contract is between everybody.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:09 PM (Gzy97)
124
Marriage IS between a man and a woman. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Whether it was for love, money, status, or whatever reason anyone can come up with, it is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals are trying to create a special right whare none exists. There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage. They are simply trying to change the meaning of a word as they have done several others to push their agenda. For example; gay means happy, not homosexual. A homophobe; a phobia is an irrational fear, not a hatred of homosexuals. Now they're trying to change the definition of marriage. I do not care whether homosexuals live together, that is their choice and their business,not mine, but living together AND calling it a marriageis just plain wrong and dishonors a real marriage which is a union between a man and a woman.
Posted by: Bill R. at May 28, 2009 02:11 PM (EhlQq)
125
That's why a contract is between everybody.
Well, at least you got yourself a point of view. Myself, I tend to believe it's no one else's fucking business, but that's just how I roll.
Well, at least you got yourself a point of view. Myself, I tend to believe it's no one else's fucking business, but that's just how I roll.
Posted by: Monty at May 28, 2009 02:13 PM (/0a60)
126
Qwinn,
youhave presuaded me of the validity of your arguement.
(no snark)
(wasn't only you, other comments here also helped me along)
clarity feels good...
youhave presuaded me of the validity of your arguement.
(no snark)
(wasn't only you, other comments here also helped me along)
clarity feels good...
Posted by: shoey at May 28, 2009 02:20 PM (IRh55)
127
Well, at least you got yourself a point of view
It's not a point of view, monty. It is the way things are. Two people do not enter into legally binding contracts between themselves. They enter into legally binding contracts between themselves and the state. That is what makes it legally binding - the states promise that it will enforce it.
It's not a point of view, monty. It is the way things are. Two people do not enter into legally binding contracts between themselves. They enter into legally binding contracts between themselves and the state. That is what makes it legally binding - the states promise that it will enforce it.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:23 PM (XLFSG)
128
I tend to believe it's no one else's fucking business
So if you are cheated on a contract, you just break the legs of the guy who cheated you? You don't involve the rest of us at all? I don't believe you.
So if you are cheated on a contract, you just break the legs of the guy who cheated you? You don't involve the rest of us at all? I don't believe you.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:25 PM (XLFSG)
129
I can't say as I ever plan on getting 'married' again. There seems little point in today's world. (internet pron is easy, cheap, and chemically safe) So maybe my opinion is pointless, However:
As for the terminology, 'marriage' I have to believe is a religiously based word, and since the state has no business in the definitions of religious beliefs, it should not be attempting to define what it means in the courts.
'Civil union', 'cohabitation', 'domestic partner', 'fucklebunny buttslamers', who cares what they call it, it is a legal agreement between two 'humans' with the purpose of sharing a common domicile/wealth/benifits and that should be allowed without predjudice. Let the cocsuckers sign a contract, I could care less, but don't put the word 'marriage' on it because you think you are going to force the religion, or the people of the religion,to accept the two of you as areproducing couple.
As for the terminology, 'marriage' I have to believe is a religiously based word, and since the state has no business in the definitions of religious beliefs, it should not be attempting to define what it means in the courts.
'Civil union', 'cohabitation', 'domestic partner', 'fucklebunny buttslamers', who cares what they call it, it is a legal agreement between two 'humans' with the purpose of sharing a common domicile/wealth/benifits and that should be allowed without predjudice. Let the cocsuckers sign a contract, I could care less, but don't put the word 'marriage' on it because you think you are going to force the religion, or the people of the religion,to accept the two of you as areproducing couple.
Posted by: Eric at May 28, 2009 02:26 PM (N+w6G)
130
When will someone address the basic question regarding queer marriage. This is what evidence exists to overturn the thousands of years of experience that such unions are deterimental to society and offer no benefits to mankind.
Now I realize that the author can advance such a view without supporting it nor advancing evidence to sustain the overthrow of the judgement of thousands of years of trial and error.
But I wonder just for once what this argument is.
As for children being raised by gay couples I believe anyone can draw their own conclusions of how such children will turn out. After all don't children of committed Marxists turn out to be good capitalists and advocates of freedom?
Now I realize that the author can advance such a view without supporting it nor advancing evidence to sustain the overthrow of the judgement of thousands of years of trial and error.
But I wonder just for once what this argument is.
As for children being raised by gay couples I believe anyone can draw their own conclusions of how such children will turn out. After all don't children of committed Marxists turn out to be good capitalists and advocates of freedom?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 28, 2009 02:29 PM (B8gqF)
131
We've entered into a lot of contracts and also believe that its nobody's business and the government should stay out of it.
What the fuck is a contract which the government is not involved in? The concept is meaningless. The definition of a contract is that the government is involved.
If you sign a contract with another party to provide you with a service, and they take your money and don't provide the service, you will involve the government in getting redress. That's a big part of what the courts do.
What the fuck is a contract which the government is not involved in? The concept is meaningless. The definition of a contract is that the government is involved.
If you sign a contract with another party to provide you with a service, and they take your money and don't provide the service, you will involve the government in getting redress. That's a big part of what the courts do.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:30 PM (XLFSG)
132
The State does not “enforce” contracts. Contracts are enforced by one party taking the other party to court in a “civil action”.
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2009 02:31 PM (BYokb)
133
After all don't children of committed Marxists turn out to be good capitalists and advocates of freedom? Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 28, 2009 02:29 PM (B8gqF)
God, don't we wish that were true Thomas, Obama would be Ronald Reagan 2.0!
God, don't we wish that were true Thomas, Obama would be Ronald Reagan 2.0!
Posted by: Eric at May 28, 2009 02:32 PM (N+w6G)
134
Monty re: website - you had me at pictures of guns.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 28, 2009 02:37 PM (SHHaV)
135
The State does not “enforce” contracts. Contracts are enforced by one party taking the other party to court in a “civil action"
Jesus fucking Christ, do you realise that your two sentences contradicted each other?
The "courts" you mentioned are the the state. They enforce the contract by issuing legally binding rulings. If you fail to comply with the states legally binding rulings, they send men with guns to make you comply. In other words the state enforces the contract, not "one party".
Morons, indeed.
Jesus fucking Christ, do you realise that your two sentences contradicted each other?
The "courts" you mentioned are the the state. They enforce the contract by issuing legally binding rulings. If you fail to comply with the states legally binding rulings, they send men with guns to make you comply. In other words the state enforces the contract, not "one party".
Morons, indeed.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:38 PM (XLFSG)
136
Let the government issue legally-binding civil unions as contract of obligations between people. Any people, heterosexual or homosexual.
Let churches certify a marriage.
The churches get to call someone officially "married", or not, as they see fit; and everyone's the same in the eyes of the law.
I really don't see why that's a problem.
Let churches certify a marriage.
The churches get to call someone officially "married", or not, as they see fit; and everyone's the same in the eyes of the law.
I really don't see why that's a problem.
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 02:39 PM (xWk3U)
137
> Doesn't this basically say that our society has now bought into the lie
that there is no difference between men and women, mothers and fathers?
Yes. That is why so many people (including myself, at one time) can so easily be persuaded that "marriage" is merely a legal, contractual idea rather than something that's fundamental to civilization and points to truths above and beyond the parties involved.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to claim at one moment that women are just like men, and to claim at the next moment that women are wiser and just plain better than men.
that there is no difference between men and women, mothers and fathers?
Yes. That is why so many people (including myself, at one time) can so easily be persuaded that "marriage" is merely a legal, contractual idea rather than something that's fundamental to civilization and points to truths above and beyond the parties involved.
Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to claim at one moment that women are just like men, and to claim at the next moment that women are wiser and just plain better than men.
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at May 28, 2009 02:41 PM (5Rrm3)
138
Let the government issue legally-binding civil unions as contract of
obligations between people. Any people, heterosexual or homosexual.
Why?
And what number of people should be eligible? Can a thousand people "marry" each other? If not, why not?
everyone's the same in the eyes of the law.
Everyone is not supposed to be the same in the eyes of the law.
obligations between people. Any people, heterosexual or homosexual.
Why?
And what number of people should be eligible? Can a thousand people "marry" each other? If not, why not?
everyone's the same in the eyes of the law.
Everyone is not supposed to be the same in the eyes of the law.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:41 PM (XLFSG)
139
The court does not issue "rulings". A jury decides who is the agreived party. And the State most certainly does NOT send people with guns to enforce the verdict. That takes yet another civil action if the guilty party does not pay up.
YES, morons indeed.
YES, morons indeed.
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2009 02:41 PM (BYokb)
140
Doesn't the allowance of same-sex couples adopting children basically imply that either a mother or a father is irrelevant to the raising of a child (since a same-sex couple with obviously not have one or the other)? We are basically saying now that a child simply needs two adults, not a mom and dad, both male and female influences in their life, but simply two adults.
My own personal take is that there aren't a lot of perfect parents out there. Maybe it's ideal to have 2 "differently gendered" parents, but I don't think that it's really a choice of two perfect straight parents vs. some crazy gay guys. It could be that two lesbians or gay guyswho put time and effort into adopting are much better parents than two 18 year olds who couldn't figure out where the condom goes.
My own personal take is that there aren't a lot of perfect parents out there. Maybe it's ideal to have 2 "differently gendered" parents, but I don't think that it's really a choice of two perfect straight parents vs. some crazy gay guys. It could be that two lesbians or gay guyswho put time and effort into adopting are much better parents than two 18 year olds who couldn't figure out where the condom goes.
Posted by: Mama AJ at May 28, 2009 02:44 PM (X6Zdh)
141
So... I gotta say I'm in favor of the idea of getting government out of marriage, but only because small groups of people attempting to use the courts to undo or overturn the will of large groups of people worries me.
I had my Nikah with my wife, where we were married before Allah. We registered that with the state in a seperate deal. If gay people want to find some church that will marry them, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to accept that, and don't try to use the power of the gun to enforce acceptance. KTHXBYE.
THe matter of adoption is seperate, but I could assure that if the regulations here in the US were different, fewer people would adopt chinese kids. I'm adopted, as are all my siblings, and I cannot begin to tell you all of the stories of blatant racism and complete incompetence on the part of WA's DSHS. One thing I do thank my drugged-out egg-donor for is preventing me from ever developing the notion that women are not capable of horrific acts of evil and pure self interest, and that the whole mother-child bond thing is not concrete.
Thanks, bitch.
I had my Nikah with my wife, where we were married before Allah. We registered that with the state in a seperate deal. If gay people want to find some church that will marry them, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to accept that, and don't try to use the power of the gun to enforce acceptance. KTHXBYE.
THe matter of adoption is seperate, but I could assure that if the regulations here in the US were different, fewer people would adopt chinese kids. I'm adopted, as are all my siblings, and I cannot begin to tell you all of the stories of blatant racism and complete incompetence on the part of WA's DSHS. One thing I do thank my drugged-out egg-donor for is preventing me from ever developing the notion that women are not capable of horrific acts of evil and pure self interest, and that the whole mother-child bond thing is not concrete.
Thanks, bitch.
Posted by: flashoverride at May 28, 2009 02:47 PM (E/X9t)
142
The court does not issue "rulings".
Fuck off, you stupid twat. The people suing the CA Supreme Court were certainly expecting the court to issue a "ruling". And it did, although one they did not like. If it had ruled differently, that "ruling" would have been enforced by men with guns. As it stands, the current "ruling" is enforced by men with guns.
Morons, indeed.
A jury decides who is the agreived party
Juries are part of the court system, you moron. And frequently the courts rulings are not even based on jury verdicts. See, e.g the recent CA Supreme Court ruling.
the State most certainly does NOT send people with guns to enforce the verdict.
Jesus. I'm talking to an idiot.
That takes yet another civil action if the guilty party does not pay up.
After which, uhhh .... what happens? Oh, right, the state sends those men with guns. Which you just denied happened. And the state does this because contract law, like law in general, is enforced by men with guns. That's the distinctive feature of the law. You could say that that is what makes law the law.
Fuck off, you stupid twat. The people suing the CA Supreme Court were certainly expecting the court to issue a "ruling". And it did, although one they did not like. If it had ruled differently, that "ruling" would have been enforced by men with guns. As it stands, the current "ruling" is enforced by men with guns.
Morons, indeed.
A jury decides who is the agreived party
Juries are part of the court system, you moron. And frequently the courts rulings are not even based on jury verdicts. See, e.g the recent CA Supreme Court ruling.
the State most certainly does NOT send people with guns to enforce the verdict.
Jesus. I'm talking to an idiot.
That takes yet another civil action if the guilty party does not pay up.
After which, uhhh .... what happens? Oh, right, the state sends those men with guns. Which you just denied happened. And the state does this because contract law, like law in general, is enforced by men with guns. That's the distinctive feature of the law. You could say that that is what makes law the law.
Posted by: flenser at May 28, 2009 02:51 PM (XLFSG)
143
Flenser you sure are a hostile SOB. I'm done with you.
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2009 02:54 PM (BYokb)
144
Why?
Why not?
And what number of people should be eligible? Can a thousand people "marry" each other? If not, why not?
Not my question to answer. Put it to a vote.
Everyone is not supposed to be the same in the eyes of the law.
M'mkaaaaaaay. ^_^
Why not?
And what number of people should be eligible? Can a thousand people "marry" each other? If not, why not?
Not my question to answer. Put it to a vote.
Everyone is not supposed to be the same in the eyes of the law.
M'mkaaaaaaay. ^_^
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 02:56 PM (xWk3U)
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 02:56 PM (xWk3U)
146
Yeah, marital relationships fail nearly 50% of the time - resulting in those children put at risk - but 50% of the time, they don't.
Since this comes up alot in relation to gay marraige- The 50% meme is a fallacy. The number includes all marraiges thus using even the outliers who a serial marriers. In other words, first marraiges succeed at a much higher rate then 50-50 but the averages are skewed by the multiple marraige and multiple divorce crowd.
Since this comes up alot in relation to gay marraige- The 50% meme is a fallacy. The number includes all marraiges thus using even the outliers who a serial marriers. In other words, first marraiges succeed at a much higher rate then 50-50 but the averages are skewed by the multiple marraige and multiple divorce crowd.
Posted by: kidney at May 28, 2009 02:57 PM (vbr6o)
147
It could be that two lesbians or gay guyswho put time and effort into
adopting are much better parents than two 18 year olds who couldn't
figure out where the condom goes.
It's possible.
But stastically, it ain't the way to bet. At all. Biological mom and dad in married relationship has, by pretty much every study ever conducted, significantly better outcomes than every other setup. That doesn't mean no traditional marriage goes bad, or every adopted gay does. It's a straw man argument, really. Nothing will ever be perfect. Being considerably better than every other option should be enough to warrant a strong societal and compelling state interest in encouraging that single platform for the creation of the next generation of the citizenry.
Qwinn
adopting are much better parents than two 18 year olds who couldn't
figure out where the condom goes.
It's possible.
But stastically, it ain't the way to bet. At all. Biological mom and dad in married relationship has, by pretty much every study ever conducted, significantly better outcomes than every other setup. That doesn't mean no traditional marriage goes bad, or every adopted gay does. It's a straw man argument, really. Nothing will ever be perfect. Being considerably better than every other option should be enough to warrant a strong societal and compelling state interest in encouraging that single platform for the creation of the next generation of the citizenry.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 02:58 PM (/y1J0)
148
Gabe you are funny.
Even Science say it is impossible for either Yin-Yin or Yang-Yang to procreate; the only way the world exists is Yin-Yang.
That said; homosexuals can marry. Former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and even managed to procreate children with the females whom he married.
Lawyers, stop making up fucking rights where there are none.
I do not understand all the anti-Yin-Yang. None of us were here when Yin-Yang was created so maybe us arrogant fucking assholes should keep the fuck out of Yin-Yang's business.
Even Science say it is impossible for either Yin-Yin or Yang-Yang to procreate; the only way the world exists is Yin-Yang.
That said; homosexuals can marry. Former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and even managed to procreate children with the females whom he married.
Lawyers, stop making up fucking rights where there are none.
I do not understand all the anti-Yin-Yang. None of us were here when Yin-Yang was created so maybe us arrogant fucking assholes should keep the fuck out of Yin-Yang's business.
Posted by: syn at May 28, 2009 02:59 PM (7mgBe)
Posted by: syn at May 28, 2009 03:01 PM (7mgBe)
150
When everyone is no longer treated the same in the eyes of the law, you have embraced a police state mentality. You have adopted tyranny.
Posted by: Cigarette Man at May 28, 2009 03:03 PM (FoHqy)
151
Just a second of DelD in 43, above -- the Church of Christ does not "own" Pepperdine or control Pepperdine or otherwise have much of anything to do with governance of Pepperdine. The CofC is, as DelD pointed out, a rather decentralized movement with no national governing body or other overarching organization. We have nothing like the Southern Baptist Convention, etc., Pepperdine affiliates with the CofC, not the other way around.Not only is there not someone in a position of power to say 'yea' or 'nay' to Pepperdine, there really isn't a position of power at all above the individual congregation.
And just for the record I'm not in favor of anyone dying in fires. We should leave the invective to the liberal blog sites, they appear to enjoy that kind of thing.
And just for the record I'm not in favor of anyone dying in fires. We should leave the invective to the liberal blog sites, they appear to enjoy that kind of thing.
Posted by: Darren at May 28, 2009 03:04 PM (pPZti)
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 03:05 PM (xWk3U)
153
Michael in MI: We are basically saying now that a child simply needs two adults, not a
mom and dad, both male and female influences in their life, but simply
two adults.
Not even - singles can adopt, also.
mom and dad, both male and female influences in their life, but simply
two adults.
Not even - singles can adopt, also.
Posted by: Jazz at May 28, 2009 03:08 PM (hnq5i)
154
When a state issues a marriage license to two people, they are in effect saying that "we the people" approve and support it. The state is working on our behalf. When two homosexuals do the same thing, "we the peope" are saying the same thing. The difference is, "we the people" do not approve and refuse to sanction this. Some of you state that it is "none of our business." Well you are correct up until the point where you try to get the state to sanction this perversion. When that is attempted, you make it our business and must voice our objection to the state sanctioning something that can not exist.
Posted by: Bill R. at May 28, 2009 03:09 PM (EhlQq)
155
Being considerably better than every other option should be enough to warrant a strong societal and compelling state interest in encouraging that single platform for the creation of the next generation of the citizenry.
I understand your point. There is, however, a difference between encouraging one thing and stopping another. Single parents orpeople who have children very late in life aren't the best options, but those people are not always* barred from adopting. Where do you draw the line?
(*When I looked into overseas adoption a few years ago, it varied between agencies what the cut-off age was for the parents. Some would not have put us on the list for babies because my husband was over 40.)
I understand your point. There is, however, a difference between encouraging one thing and stopping another. Single parents orpeople who have children very late in life aren't the best options, but those people are not always* barred from adopting. Where do you draw the line?
(*When I looked into overseas adoption a few years ago, it varied between agencies what the cut-off age was for the parents. Some would not have put us on the list for babies because my husband was over 40.)
Posted by: Mama AJ at May 28, 2009 03:10 PM (X6Zdh)
156
Church of Christ?Isn't that the Church whose preachers damn God before the congregation?
Depends. The plain old Church of Christ is the unflinchingly Bible-following church. You would be referring to the United CoC or the CoC Congregational, which is the church branch the Exalted One was a member of for 20 years. They are also tolerant of all sexual orientations and all other religions, including Islam.
Depends. The plain old Church of Christ is the unflinchingly Bible-following church. You would be referring to the United CoC or the CoC Congregational, which is the church branch the Exalted One was a member of for 20 years. They are also tolerant of all sexual orientations and all other religions, including Islam.
Posted by: katya at May 28, 2009 03:22 PM (oRJZj)
157
"...words matter. If the term "marriage" really means so little that
it can be replaced with a "civil license" available to all (gay or
straight), there would have been nothing like the fight we've seen or
the backlash against activists courts."
I think that the backlash and fight that we've seen is in response to the fact that "marriage" really does mean so little.
Realizing that is true is alarming to anyone who cares about marriage and an opportunity for those giving away something meaningless to pat themselves on the back over it.
But words do matter, and *because* they matter, changing "marriage" to "civil license" or some other thing (and I'd sure like to see some major serious thought put into what form that license should take and what contract-defaults it includes) might actually allow the term "marriage" to be salvaged. I don't say that it *will* just that it *could*.
Part of the dumbing down of marriage has to be caused by religious institutions being tied to the civil definition... as it is, only rather extreme churches hold out for their own definition anymore. Mostly churches will marry anyone at all, and the state recognizes the marriage as binding... but it's one directional. You don't go to your *church* for a divorce and when it's granted have the state recognize the divorce as final.
If churches could see this as an opportunity rather than a disaster, they might be able to retreive "marriage" from meaninglessness and reintroduce the notion of a bond with more permanence and far higher standards for those who wish to *marry* rather than simply co-habitate.
it can be replaced with a "civil license" available to all (gay or
straight), there would have been nothing like the fight we've seen or
the backlash against activists courts."
I think that the backlash and fight that we've seen is in response to the fact that "marriage" really does mean so little.
Realizing that is true is alarming to anyone who cares about marriage and an opportunity for those giving away something meaningless to pat themselves on the back over it.
But words do matter, and *because* they matter, changing "marriage" to "civil license" or some other thing (and I'd sure like to see some major serious thought put into what form that license should take and what contract-defaults it includes) might actually allow the term "marriage" to be salvaged. I don't say that it *will* just that it *could*.
Part of the dumbing down of marriage has to be caused by religious institutions being tied to the civil definition... as it is, only rather extreme churches hold out for their own definition anymore. Mostly churches will marry anyone at all, and the state recognizes the marriage as binding... but it's one directional. You don't go to your *church* for a divorce and when it's granted have the state recognize the divorce as final.
If churches could see this as an opportunity rather than a disaster, they might be able to retreive "marriage" from meaninglessness and reintroduce the notion of a bond with more permanence and far higher standards for those who wish to *marry* rather than simply co-habitate.
Posted by: Synova at May 28, 2009 03:25 PM (NxP4A)
158
Yes, gay couples can have children, but the fertility rate of the gay population is very low. If we encourage gay marriage, we are dooming the country to underpopulation and eventual takeover by the cultures of the world where homosexuality is condemned.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either uphold traditional marriage, and maintain and hopefully increase the U.S. fertility rate or say anything goes and watch U.S. fertility rate drop down to half a percent. The only way to make up for that is to increase immigration on a huge scale, which will not happen without serious effects on everything.
This is the last bastion of Western Civilization. We all know which way the Europeans are going, and yes they will be destroyed eventually, as a civilization, by muslims whose fertiilty rates are several times higher than theirs.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either uphold traditional marriage, and maintain and hopefully increase the U.S. fertility rate or say anything goes and watch U.S. fertility rate drop down to half a percent. The only way to make up for that is to increase immigration on a huge scale, which will not happen without serious effects on everything.
This is the last bastion of Western Civilization. We all know which way the Europeans are going, and yes they will be destroyed eventually, as a civilization, by muslims whose fertiilty rates are several times higher than theirs.
Posted by: mikhail at May 28, 2009 03:28 PM (D66vQ)
159
Mama AJ:
At this point, I have no sympathy left in me. I draw the line at marriage and no further. Why? Because to even -try- to be nice, tolerant, and not overly picky is to commit suicide. It is to surrender our civilization. That ain't -my- fault. It is those who insist that if we aren't total bastards, then we are inconsistent, and therefore everything goes.
Example: Whenever I argue the point about marriage being about children, someone always inevitably points out "we don't stop menopausal women from getting married". Right. Because we don't want to be pricks. It's mean to get in some old biddy's face and say "No, you dried up prune, through no fault or choice of your own, you can't have kids anymore, so no wedding for you." And it's also a really obnoxious state intrusion to check if a woman is still having a period. And there's always a chance for a miracle birth.
So, we're nice to our old people. We let them get married even though they can't have kids, cause we don't want to rub it in their face. And we're not pricks who insist marriages must be annulled if the parents don't have kids (although, either parent -can- have their marriage instantly annulled if the other spouse refuses or cannot have children, which should prove the point of marriage's purpose without any further question, but no argument with a social liberal can ever truly be won.)
But then, that nice, reasonable exception we had, where we don't forbid our old people from getting remarried because they did all the breeding they're going to but are no longer capable, that gets used to justify all marriage everywhere and to forcibly disconnect marriage from childraising, as it does in the very arguments we're having.
when you start admitting entire classes of marriages that categorically cannot possibly produce children, you reduce ALL marriage down to a convenient sexual arrangement for no compelling state reason whatsoever.
Seriously. If we could end this insane argument by forbidding menopausal women from getting married, I would support it. Not because -I- don't want them to be able to get married, but because we -can't- let them get married without -also- destroying the institution altogether.
10000 years of human history managed it, but we're too freaking juvenile to manage it, so from now on, marriage should be restricted to only those capable and willing to provide children. Why? Cause gays and liberals are too freaking self-centered and juvenile to allow for reasonable individual non-invasive exceptions without also requiring unreasonable categorical extreme exceptions. So don't blame me.
Social liberals wonder why social conservatives can get preachy and absolutist? Because absolutism is the only freaking way to keep social liberals from destroying everything. It is EMOTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE for leftists to -not- incrementally assault every possible slippery slope they can see. It's their nature.
Qwinn
At this point, I have no sympathy left in me. I draw the line at marriage and no further. Why? Because to even -try- to be nice, tolerant, and not overly picky is to commit suicide. It is to surrender our civilization. That ain't -my- fault. It is those who insist that if we aren't total bastards, then we are inconsistent, and therefore everything goes.
Example: Whenever I argue the point about marriage being about children, someone always inevitably points out "we don't stop menopausal women from getting married". Right. Because we don't want to be pricks. It's mean to get in some old biddy's face and say "No, you dried up prune, through no fault or choice of your own, you can't have kids anymore, so no wedding for you." And it's also a really obnoxious state intrusion to check if a woman is still having a period. And there's always a chance for a miracle birth.
So, we're nice to our old people. We let them get married even though they can't have kids, cause we don't want to rub it in their face. And we're not pricks who insist marriages must be annulled if the parents don't have kids (although, either parent -can- have their marriage instantly annulled if the other spouse refuses or cannot have children, which should prove the point of marriage's purpose without any further question, but no argument with a social liberal can ever truly be won.)
But then, that nice, reasonable exception we had, where we don't forbid our old people from getting remarried because they did all the breeding they're going to but are no longer capable, that gets used to justify all marriage everywhere and to forcibly disconnect marriage from childraising, as it does in the very arguments we're having.
when you start admitting entire classes of marriages that categorically cannot possibly produce children, you reduce ALL marriage down to a convenient sexual arrangement for no compelling state reason whatsoever.
Seriously. If we could end this insane argument by forbidding menopausal women from getting married, I would support it. Not because -I- don't want them to be able to get married, but because we -can't- let them get married without -also- destroying the institution altogether.
10000 years of human history managed it, but we're too freaking juvenile to manage it, so from now on, marriage should be restricted to only those capable and willing to provide children. Why? Cause gays and liberals are too freaking self-centered and juvenile to allow for reasonable individual non-invasive exceptions without also requiring unreasonable categorical extreme exceptions. So don't blame me.
Social liberals wonder why social conservatives can get preachy and absolutist? Because absolutism is the only freaking way to keep social liberals from destroying everything. It is EMOTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE for leftists to -not- incrementally assault every possible slippery slope they can see. It's their nature.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn at May 28, 2009 03:34 PM (/y1J0)
160
Thank you Qwinn for your response.
It's a thorny issue and I'm too sick and tired to use my brain any more today.
It's a thorny issue and I'm too sick and tired to use my brain any more today.
Posted by: Mama AJ at May 28, 2009 03:42 PM (X6Zdh)
161
Oh for pete's sake.
Gay people aren't going to suddenly become fertile, saving us all from extinction and hordes of immigrants just so long as we condemn homosexuality.
The way to solve this problem is to have children, encourage people to have children, and support those people who are so rude as to go out in public with a herd of whiny brats. (Even angels are whiny brats from time to time.)
We don't face a very real threat of negative fertility rates because people are gay, we face that threat because heterosexual people have decided that it's selfish to have children, so only have one or two at the most and feel guilty when they do, and that any child conceived in less than ideal circumstances ought to be aborted.
Muslim fertility rates and Hispanic fertility rates are connected to religious faith and the belief that children are blessings and that it's good to have lots of blessings, even if you'd be driving a better car and living in a nicer house and taking vacations if you didn't have them. Evangelical Christians *also* have large numbers of children.
Gay people aren't going to suddenly become fertile, saving us all from extinction and hordes of immigrants just so long as we condemn homosexuality.
The way to solve this problem is to have children, encourage people to have children, and support those people who are so rude as to go out in public with a herd of whiny brats. (Even angels are whiny brats from time to time.)
We don't face a very real threat of negative fertility rates because people are gay, we face that threat because heterosexual people have decided that it's selfish to have children, so only have one or two at the most and feel guilty when they do, and that any child conceived in less than ideal circumstances ought to be aborted.
Muslim fertility rates and Hispanic fertility rates are connected to religious faith and the belief that children are blessings and that it's good to have lots of blessings, even if you'd be driving a better car and living in a nicer house and taking vacations if you didn't have them. Evangelical Christians *also* have large numbers of children.
Posted by: Synova at May 28, 2009 03:42 PM (NxP4A)
162
I'll support gay marriage just as soon as gays support school vouchers, so thatI can help my childavoid the invevitable gay indoctrination that will occur in our public schools.
Since that will never happen, I'll never support gay marriage.
You stay the fuck out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Seems easy enough, but the left always wants to ram their bullshit down our kids' throats.
So, sorry gays. Well, not all of you. Sorry to the conservative ones. I'm putting my own interests first.
Since that will never happen, I'll never support gay marriage.
You stay the fuck out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Seems easy enough, but the left always wants to ram their bullshit down our kids' throats.
So, sorry gays. Well, not all of you. Sorry to the conservative ones. I'm putting my own interests first.
Posted by: Warden at May 28, 2009 03:44 PM (QoR4a)
163
The way to solve this problem is to have children, encourage people to have children, and support those people who are so rude as to go out in public with a herd of whiny brats. (Even angels are whiny brats from time to time.)
Well, I've had my three so I've done my "civic" duty.
Well, I've had my three so I've done my "civic" duty.
Posted by: katya at May 28, 2009 03:53 PM (oRJZj)
164
"So, we're nice to our old people. We let them get married even though
they can't have kids, cause we don't want to rub it in their face. "
Hey! We *model* male-female relationships for our yout'! Kids are amazed when they find a man and woman who are married and get along and are happy. I've had more than one poor lil' step-bastard ask, did you and grandpa really get married? Like with a wedding and everything? because their parents are too effed up to bother with all that and want to stay loose in case they find someone hotter.
they can't have kids, cause we don't want to rub it in their face. "
Hey! We *model* male-female relationships for our yout'! Kids are amazed when they find a man and woman who are married and get along and are happy. I've had more than one poor lil' step-bastard ask, did you and grandpa really get married? Like with a wedding and everything? because their parents are too effed up to bother with all that and want to stay loose in case they find someone hotter.
Posted by: cassandra at May 28, 2009 05:10 PM (GdalM)
165
god damn it Qwinn you are so right, i can not believe how i haven't seen it before...
I'll blame it on Jimmah Carter, just because i haven't blamed him for anything lately, lol
I'll blame it on Jimmah Carter, just because i haven't blamed him for anything lately, lol
Posted by: shoey at May 28, 2009 05:43 PM (RxUMK)
166
Girlfriend in a coma, I know. It's really serious.
Posted by: carl carlson at May 28, 2009 05:44 PM (dZ8HB)
167
168.
I have to admit, the last thing I expected to see in this thread was a lyric from that song by The Recliners.
...
I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition either.
I have to admit, the last thing I expected to see in this thread was a lyric from that song by The Recliners.
...
I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition either.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 28, 2009 06:34 PM (eiOZw)
168
Gay activists do not want gay marriage for purposes of "equal rights" or "for the children." They want affirmation of their queer lifestyle choices. That affirmation will lead to further demands for Politically Correct indoctrination "for the children" so that their perversion can be further main streamed. Societal affirmation soon turns to individual coercion. Those with conflicting religious beliefs will inevitably be labeled as "haters" and persecuted, if not prosecuted. Certainly our First Amendment rights are more important than soothing the bruised feelings of those who practice an unnatural sexual proclivity.
Posted by: RTH615 at May 28, 2009 06:41 PM (hpj1S)
169
We are constantly told how 'creative' gay people are. So let 'em create a word for their "union". Marriage has been taken, find another word. I'm not buying into the politically correct speech of Newspeak. I have no doubt that gays, eventually, will be allowed to "marry". I'd also imagine that the Man-Boy Love Assoc will be right behind them, expousing their own inalienable "right".
Posted by: GarandFan at May 28, 2009 06:48 PM (C3okI)
170
Marriage: The Unholy Alliance of Church and State
“By the power vested in me, by the state of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Wife.” declared the minister in front of the altar of God.
We have heard it so many times at weddings, movies and television that we forget
the significance of this pronouncement and how it blurs the vast difference between the government meaning of marriage and the popular meaning of marriage.
The word “marriage” conjures in our minds and emotion the promise of love, caring, committed relationship, living together, making babies, families, and continuity. A government marriage license does not require or address any of those things. The couple does not even have to declare that they intend to like each other or live together. In this respect it is a hollow document, only a voucher for a bundle for exclusive government benefits and privileges. These subsidies have grown with little thought, challenge or debate during the 20th century.
There is a popular misconception that marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between the bride and the groom. This is not quite true, “Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves” There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government’s rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime. No one reads the unsuspecting couple their “Miranda rights” or informs them about what they are agreeing to.
Our minister conducting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is a government official, an “agent” of the State of California. There is a conspiracy of Church and State. If a couple wishes to have the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in their own local church they will be forced, as a practical matter, to get a government marriage license in which they assent to this contract with government which binds them to whatever marriage laws the government wishes to enact or change.
The controversy over same-sex marriage should cause us to ask: Why is the government involved in marriage? Equality? Fairness? Why is the government giving exclusive financial benefits to people with marriage licenses and not to people without marriage licenses? I submit that people will fall in love, live together, make babies and perpetuate families with or without the government. Why do we want the ministers of our faith to be government agents?
I recommend that churches stop being agents of the government; that the state governments stop issuing marriage licenses; and that the federal government stop giving exclusive subsidies to people with marriage licenses. Benefits for all or benefits for none.
The elements of “government marriage” are the exclusive financial benefits, the exclusive privileges, and the legal responsibilities of the husband and wife. We can imagine that the financial benefits were originally motivated by concern over the “little woman” staying at home raising the children with no career, and not having any Social Security. That concern is not so applicable in recent years and makes even less sense for same-sex marriage. The exclusive privileges such as hospital visitation and exemption for testifying against a spouse could be made available in some form to all people, single or married. The legal responsibilities, in any case married or not, are better managed by explicit documents such as wills, durable power of attorney, living wills and partnership agreements.
The arguments against getting government out of the marriage and special civil union business break down into convenience; singles can get married if they want government benefits; and that single people don’t need the benefits. Pretty weak arguments compared to the passion generated in the recent marriage debates.
“By the power vested in me, by the state of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Wife.” declared the minister in front of the altar of God.
We have heard it so many times at weddings, movies and television that we forget
the significance of this pronouncement and how it blurs the vast difference between the government meaning of marriage and the popular meaning of marriage.
The word “marriage” conjures in our minds and emotion the promise of love, caring, committed relationship, living together, making babies, families, and continuity. A government marriage license does not require or address any of those things. The couple does not even have to declare that they intend to like each other or live together. In this respect it is a hollow document, only a voucher for a bundle for exclusive government benefits and privileges. These subsidies have grown with little thought, challenge or debate during the 20th century.
There is a popular misconception that marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between the bride and the groom. This is not quite true, “Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves” There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government’s rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime. No one reads the unsuspecting couple their “Miranda rights” or informs them about what they are agreeing to.
Our minister conducting the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is a government official, an “agent” of the State of California. There is a conspiracy of Church and State. If a couple wishes to have the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in their own local church they will be forced, as a practical matter, to get a government marriage license in which they assent to this contract with government which binds them to whatever marriage laws the government wishes to enact or change.
The controversy over same-sex marriage should cause us to ask: Why is the government involved in marriage? Equality? Fairness? Why is the government giving exclusive financial benefits to people with marriage licenses and not to people without marriage licenses? I submit that people will fall in love, live together, make babies and perpetuate families with or without the government. Why do we want the ministers of our faith to be government agents?
I recommend that churches stop being agents of the government; that the state governments stop issuing marriage licenses; and that the federal government stop giving exclusive subsidies to people with marriage licenses. Benefits for all or benefits for none.
The elements of “government marriage” are the exclusive financial benefits, the exclusive privileges, and the legal responsibilities of the husband and wife. We can imagine that the financial benefits were originally motivated by concern over the “little woman” staying at home raising the children with no career, and not having any Social Security. That concern is not so applicable in recent years and makes even less sense for same-sex marriage. The exclusive privileges such as hospital visitation and exemption for testifying against a spouse could be made available in some form to all people, single or married. The legal responsibilities, in any case married or not, are better managed by explicit documents such as wills, durable power of attorney, living wills and partnership agreements.
The arguments against getting government out of the marriage and special civil union business break down into convenience; singles can get married if they want government benefits; and that single people don’t need the benefits. Pretty weak arguments compared to the passion generated in the recent marriage debates.
Posted by: ChristianMiller at May 28, 2009 06:52 PM (kfkvx)
Posted by: Mica Vim Toot at May 28, 2009 06:56 PM (RdfNR)
172
"Well, right now the government has "marriage licenses". People do not have to go to a church to get "married". They can simply go to the Justice of the Peace (JOP). My cousin and his current wife did that after his first marriage (conducted in a Church, the whole nine yards...) ended extremely poorly. So they decided they didn't want a big ceremony, just a JOP trip and a nice party at home. Are you saying that now -- we they to have done this with the government out of the marriage business -- my cousin and his wife would not be recognized as "married" but instead would simply be "civil unioned" and, if they wanted to be able to say they are "married", they would have to go through a ceremony at a Church?"
No. They can say they are married just like gays can, in their private lives. They have every right to do that. My point is that the government does not make what they have a "marriage".
No. They can say they are married just like gays can, in their private lives. They have every right to do that. My point is that the government does not make what they have a "marriage".
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 28, 2009 07:03 PM (KTbUz)
173
I actually like the idea of government getting out of the business of marriage. Marriage, as I as a Christian understands it, is a religious sacrament uniting a man and a woman in the eyes of God.
The government has no business administering sacraments.
The government has no business administering sacraments.
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 28, 2009 07:16 PM (iafWn)
174
With all due respect Gabe, you're flat-ass wrong (Flat ass indicates a mineral deficiency - no assatol - so that may be contributing to your intellectual and moral deficiency).
I have no problem with gay "unions" being legally protected so that property rights, visitation rights &c. are protected, but calling those arrangements "marriage" is simply an abomination.
Furthermore, I have no problem with any errant Christian cult performing "marriages" between same-sex couples. That's where marriage belongs; in the Churches.
Government ought to offer simple legal contracts, and nothing more, to any couples who desire them, but leave the marrying to the Churches (And Synagogues, and Mosques).
As an addendum, I'd only add that it cracks me up that homosexuals, who hate religion for the most part, would even seek marriage, which is a religious sacrament. Kinda psycho.
I have no problem with gay "unions" being legally protected so that property rights, visitation rights &c. are protected, but calling those arrangements "marriage" is simply an abomination.
Furthermore, I have no problem with any errant Christian cult performing "marriages" between same-sex couples. That's where marriage belongs; in the Churches.
Government ought to offer simple legal contracts, and nothing more, to any couples who desire them, but leave the marrying to the Churches (And Synagogues, and Mosques).
As an addendum, I'd only add that it cracks me up that homosexuals, who hate religion for the most part, would even seek marriage, which is a religious sacrament. Kinda psycho.
Posted by: Hucbald at May 28, 2009 07:22 PM (O9yAg)
175
Gay people aren't going to suddenly become fertile, saving us all from extinction and hordes of immigrants just so long as we condemn homosexuality.
To say so is to ignore human history.
The vast majority of bisexual and gay people in history have married and borne children. Even today, the range of 'gayness' is wide, with bisexuals far outnumbering the completely gay people.
If same-sex relationships suddenly became as American as apple pie, you will lose a large segment of the breeding population as bisexuals opt for long term same-sex relationships.
We act as though 10,000 years of human culture were made on a whim. No, religions instituted culture for a reason: to preserve their civilizations in the face of hostile enemies.
If your enemies outnumber you, you will be destroyed.
Gay people aren't going to suddenly become fertile, saving us all from extinction and hordes of immigrants just so long as we condemn homosexuality.
To say so is to ignore human history.
The vast majority of bisexual and gay people in history have married and borne children. Even today, the range of 'gayness' is wide, with bisexuals far outnumbering the completely gay people.
If same-sex relationships suddenly became as American as apple pie, you will lose a large segment of the breeding population as bisexuals opt for long term same-sex relationships.
We act as though 10,000 years of human culture were made on a whim. No, religions instituted culture for a reason: to preserve their civilizations in the face of hostile enemies.
If your enemies outnumber you, you will be destroyed.
Posted by: mikhail at May 28, 2009 07:39 PM (D66vQ)
176
Well, Mikhail, we're busily aborting ourselves into oblivion anyway, aren't we?
Women get knocked up in their 20's and abort. They get married but hold off on pregnancy until their running around all frantic in their late 30's or even 40's to fertility clinics.
In the end, maybe they adopt Chinese kids, because white unwanted kids... were butchered in the womb.
Want to know why there REALLY are 30 million illegals in the USA today? Because they are here to take the place of the tens of millions of our kids we aborted. Maybe a society like that doesn't deserve to survive.
Women get knocked up in their 20's and abort. They get married but hold off on pregnancy until their running around all frantic in their late 30's or even 40's to fertility clinics.
In the end, maybe they adopt Chinese kids, because white unwanted kids... were butchered in the womb.
Want to know why there REALLY are 30 million illegals in the USA today? Because they are here to take the place of the tens of millions of our kids we aborted. Maybe a society like that doesn't deserve to survive.
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 28, 2009 07:42 PM (iafWn)
177
damn: "their" s/b "they're," of course...
Posted by: CoolCzech at May 28, 2009 07:42 PM (iafWn)
178
Church of Christ?
Isn't that the Church whose preachers damn God before the congregation?
The plain old Church of Christ is the unflinchingly
Bible-following church. You would be referring to the United CoC or
the CoC Congregational, which is the church branch the Exalted One was
a member of for 20 years. They are also tolerant of all sexual
orientations and all other religions, including Islam.
*****
Exactly. Here's the difference in a nutshell
The United Church of Christ is Jeremiah Wright and Obama.
The Churches of Christ are Fred Thompson, John Cornyn, and Ken Starr,
And pretty much every major Country and Western star, living or dead, you've ever heard of: Glenn Campbell, Roy Orbison, Randy Travis, Dwight Yoakam, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, Meatloaf, Kitty Wells, Brooks and Dunn, and lots more.
Church of Christ?
Isn't that the Church whose preachers damn God before the congregation?
The plain old Church of Christ is the unflinchingly
Bible-following church. You would be referring to the United CoC or
the CoC Congregational, which is the church branch the Exalted One was
a member of for 20 years. They are also tolerant of all sexual
orientations and all other religions, including Islam.
*****
Exactly. Here's the difference in a nutshell
The United Church of Christ is Jeremiah Wright and Obama.
The Churches of Christ are Fred Thompson, John Cornyn, and Ken Starr,
And pretty much every major Country and Western star, living or dead, you've ever heard of: Glenn Campbell, Roy Orbison, Randy Travis, Dwight Yoakam, Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, Meatloaf, Kitty Wells, Brooks and Dunn, and lots more.
Posted by: DelD at May 28, 2009 08:43 PM (WHoJw)
179
For crine0utloud! I think someone put silly dust in Gabe's cereal flakes this morning. First he blames Barack for QEII not getting invited to a French hosted event, then he uses REALLY circuitous logic in defending rights of gays to be recognized as 'Married'. OFFICIALLY
Let's start off with his 'Words have Meaning'.
Well, if 'Marriage' has a meaning, that meaning was invoked by cultural and Societal custom for thousands of years. Between a man of one clan and a woman, usually of a different clan. There were all sorts of elements involved: alliance of families/clans, uniting to generate offspring, etc.
It wasnt to give kids parents it was to give parents kids, thus sexual intimacy was implied.
Now, doesnt it make sense that Government got into the business of defining and regulating marriage to reduce ABUSE of the practice? That's the reason government gives to institute any other regulation.
In the same way, it eased divorce laws in order to reduce ABUSE of the practice. I dont see any way that 'weakens marriage'.
And getting government OUT of the marriage business really doesnt either. As to benefits, why cant any person or pair of people adopt children? Their sexual preferences shouldnt be a factor. Certainly there's plenty of straight couples shouldnt be allowed to be within 50 feet of a child.
Social morality is another thing. Gays who give each other blowjobs in public should not qualify as fit to raise children. And neither should heteros doing the same. Or anyone who makes a practice of defecating on the curb, for that matter.
It would simply use common sense in recognizing Cultural or Religious Marriage as a civil union, while not requiring 'solemn vows' in order to establish the same. Nothing more nothing less. Any clan or group can call it Marriage if they choose to. But their ceremonial marriages would also need be registered as a 'civil union' to establish a legal entity. Oh, wait.. it's ALREADY that way, isnt it. If some woman and I decided to exchange solemn vows of marriage before God and we dont care to establish the legal identity, we dont have to do we?
In turn, any religion or cultural group have the right to NOT recognize a civil union as a marriage if it's not according to their standards, but they may not deny the benefits of the union.
Thus a person running a hotel could not refuse service to a couple if they happen to be gay but show a CU certificate. And how would anyone know those people are gay, anyway.. unless the potentially discrimninated against make an issue of it in the first place?
Finally, calling it a civil union removes all connotations of sex, and treats abstaining couples as a domestic partnership. Is this done today? In fact it makes the sexual proclivities of anyone living together long term, OFFICIALLY no one's business.
People who are offended by the idea of having to recognize the right of gays to have sex can return to blissful denial, the practice of marriage returns to its cultural roots, provided it can satisfy the regulations as a Civil Union.
In fact, I still have the right to NOT recognize gays as 'Married', no matter what their documents say. Here's where we get to the nut of 'words matter'. If there was some service I was offering that depended somehow on the domestic status of a same sex couple and they produced a marriage certificate, I would be obliged under law to respect it, and I would.
If they pressed me on what I thought of them being married, I would respond that I wish them luck and happiness. If they pressed further I would be as non-commital as possible... but we've all been there if we've been around long enough, havent we. They arent going to stop trying to get me to 'express approval' of their marriage, are they? and it wont mean a damn thing if I say I dont care what they do behind doors. They want to be validated and specifically by those they consider 'straight'.
Now.. a little sidenote, regarding 'recognition of rights of homosexuals'. Remember the biblical story of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah?
Everyone who thinks God destroyed the cities because of their homosexuality, raise hands! Are you SURE?
Would I be interpreting wrong if I suggested that it wasnt their practice that was fatally offensive, that maybe it was their insistance that they be recognized and accomodated by the unwilling.
Dont be shocked. I'm pretty sure most Christians dont get that point either. In fact it's not REALLY clear to me that those were homosexuals banging on the doors to be let in 'so that we may know' the visiting angels in the first place.
Let's start off with his 'Words have Meaning'.
Well, if 'Marriage' has a meaning, that meaning was invoked by cultural and Societal custom for thousands of years. Between a man of one clan and a woman, usually of a different clan. There were all sorts of elements involved: alliance of families/clans, uniting to generate offspring, etc.
It wasnt to give kids parents it was to give parents kids, thus sexual intimacy was implied.
Now, doesnt it make sense that Government got into the business of defining and regulating marriage to reduce ABUSE of the practice? That's the reason government gives to institute any other regulation.
In the same way, it eased divorce laws in order to reduce ABUSE of the practice. I dont see any way that 'weakens marriage'.
And getting government OUT of the marriage business really doesnt either. As to benefits, why cant any person or pair of people adopt children? Their sexual preferences shouldnt be a factor. Certainly there's plenty of straight couples shouldnt be allowed to be within 50 feet of a child.
Social morality is another thing. Gays who give each other blowjobs in public should not qualify as fit to raise children. And neither should heteros doing the same. Or anyone who makes a practice of defecating on the curb, for that matter.
It would simply use common sense in recognizing Cultural or Religious Marriage as a civil union, while not requiring 'solemn vows' in order to establish the same. Nothing more nothing less. Any clan or group can call it Marriage if they choose to. But their ceremonial marriages would also need be registered as a 'civil union' to establish a legal entity. Oh, wait.. it's ALREADY that way, isnt it. If some woman and I decided to exchange solemn vows of marriage before God and we dont care to establish the legal identity, we dont have to do we?
In turn, any religion or cultural group have the right to NOT recognize a civil union as a marriage if it's not according to their standards, but they may not deny the benefits of the union.
Thus a person running a hotel could not refuse service to a couple if they happen to be gay but show a CU certificate. And how would anyone know those people are gay, anyway.. unless the potentially discrimninated against make an issue of it in the first place?
Finally, calling it a civil union removes all connotations of sex, and treats abstaining couples as a domestic partnership. Is this done today? In fact it makes the sexual proclivities of anyone living together long term, OFFICIALLY no one's business.
People who are offended by the idea of having to recognize the right of gays to have sex can return to blissful denial, the practice of marriage returns to its cultural roots, provided it can satisfy the regulations as a Civil Union.
In fact, I still have the right to NOT recognize gays as 'Married', no matter what their documents say. Here's where we get to the nut of 'words matter'. If there was some service I was offering that depended somehow on the domestic status of a same sex couple and they produced a marriage certificate, I would be obliged under law to respect it, and I would.
If they pressed me on what I thought of them being married, I would respond that I wish them luck and happiness. If they pressed further I would be as non-commital as possible... but we've all been there if we've been around long enough, havent we. They arent going to stop trying to get me to 'express approval' of their marriage, are they? and it wont mean a damn thing if I say I dont care what they do behind doors. They want to be validated and specifically by those they consider 'straight'.
Now.. a little sidenote, regarding 'recognition of rights of homosexuals'. Remember the biblical story of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah?
Everyone who thinks God destroyed the cities because of their homosexuality, raise hands! Are you SURE?
Would I be interpreting wrong if I suggested that it wasnt their practice that was fatally offensive, that maybe it was their insistance that they be recognized and accomodated by the unwilling.
Dont be shocked. I'm pretty sure most Christians dont get that point either. In fact it's not REALLY clear to me that those were homosexuals banging on the doors to be let in 'so that we may know' the visiting angels in the first place.
Posted by: pettyfog at May 28, 2009 08:45 PM (YVm/Z)
180
Oh, yeah, and Weird Al Yankovic, too.
Posted by: DelD at May 28, 2009 08:45 PM (WHoJw)
181
I think we could all find common ground if we'd just agree that buttsex was gross, but judging from their porn habits the entire European continent would declare war on us.
Posted by: apotheosis at May 28, 2009 09:19 PM (xWk3U)
182
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. Also, 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
wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress
Posted by: royalmewigs at May 28, 2009 10:23 PM (e2wTy)
183
I don't want government approving some behavior and punishing others outside of their own employees or through the legal system. That arrangement makes for a fairly free, non-oppressive society. "The government is best which governs least".
So I support getting government out of the marriage business, but leaving civil unions for the legal conveniences of those who want or need that.
The difference between civil union and marriage is the difference betweenhanding out breadandhanding out the Eucharist. Who wants the government to startbestowing communion?
I think it's all moot anyway. Postsexual revolutiondemographicsset themold a long time ago. Western civilization will only be around for maybe one more unfitgeneration.Let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mewand Darwinhave his day. The unfit will perish.
So I support getting government out of the marriage business, but leaving civil unions for the legal conveniences of those who want or need that.
The difference between civil union and marriage is the difference betweenhanding out breadandhanding out the Eucharist. Who wants the government to startbestowing communion?
I think it's all moot anyway. Postsexual revolutiondemographicsset themold a long time ago. Western civilization will only be around for maybe one more unfitgeneration.Let Hercules himself do what he may, the cat will mewand Darwinhave his day. The unfit will perish.
Posted by: theCork at May 29, 2009 12:46 AM (L0cxG)
184
you been told right gabriel. two homosexual people cannot have children—without assistance from a member of the opposite sex or a doctor. the very nature of homosexuality is sterile vis a vis reproduction. fact o' bio.
Posted by: apodoca at May 29, 2009 02:06 AM (eBv9X)
185
In the not so distant future, gay couples could conceivably have mixed cloned children consisting of their DNA brought to term by a surrogate.
Hell, they can use a turkey baster and a surrogate NOW, which is no different than infertile couples using a sperm donor.
So, gays can have children.
Hell, they can use a turkey baster and a surrogate NOW, which is no different than infertile couples using a sperm donor.
So, gays can have children.
Posted by: weird future at May 29, 2009 02:39 AM (i2QGx)
186
Also, there may be a subtle evolutionary strategy in having gay people in your family. In which case, gays can't have children with each other, but all of those gay uncles somehow help their gene pool out.
Posted by: weird future at May 29, 2009 02:42 AM (i2QGx)
187
I firmly support same-sex marrige the copper backed dollar ...But that support is based not on the idea
that marriage the gold backed dollar is so wounded worthless that it might as well be dissolved devalued in the
public sphere, but rather because it is something special to be
preserved accumulated and encouraged traded. Many in comments here have described in
exhausting detail the benefits of marriage the gold backed dollar, not least of which are the
stabilizing effect marriage the gold backed dollar has on relationships the economy between adults and
their children. I would like to see gay people the copper backed dollar as a part of that.
Why isn't copper gold? It's shiny, a metal, used as currency, etc. Except for a few protons and electrons what's the difference?
that marriage the gold backed dollar is so wounded worthless that it might as well be dissolved devalued in the
public sphere, but rather because it is something special to be
preserved accumulated and encouraged traded. Many in comments here have described in
exhausting detail the benefits of marriage the gold backed dollar, not least of which are the
stabilizing effect marriage the gold backed dollar has on relationships the economy between adults and
their children. I would like to see gay people the copper backed dollar as a part of that.
Why isn't copper gold? It's shiny, a metal, used as currency, etc. Except for a few protons and electrons what's the difference?
Posted by: Rocks at May 29, 2009 04:01 AM (3RHzM)
188
In turn, any religion or cultural group have the
right to NOT recognize a civil union as a marriage if it's not
according to their standards, but they may not deny the benefits of the
union.
So, I don't have to recognize it, but I am forced to give it benefits as if I do recognized it? In other words I have to treat a same sex civil union as marriage.
Now..
a little sidenote, regarding 'recognition of rights of homosexuals'.
Remember the biblical story of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah?Everyone who thinks God destroyed the cities because of their homosexuality, raise hands! Are you SURE?
Yes, I'm sure.
Would
I be interpreting wrong if I suggested that it wasnt their practice
that was fatally offensive, that maybe it was their insistance that
they be recognized and accomodated by the unwilling.
Yes, you would. But to describe ignoring the very plain, traditional and historically accepted reading of that passage is not interpretation, but redefinition.
If you tried to become s a priest with a church that does not interpret that passage as you do are they to be left with the right to not recognize you as a priest but be forced to let you say mass anyway?
Dont be
shocked. I'm pretty sure most Christians dont get that point either.
In fact it's not REALLY clear to me that those were homosexuals banging
on the doors to be let in 'so that we may know' the visiting angels in the first place.
Posted by: pettyfog at May 28, 2009 08:45 PM (YVm/Z)
I'm not shocked that tripe and the tactics that spawned it have been around for a long time.
right to NOT recognize a civil union as a marriage if it's not
according to their standards, but they may not deny the benefits of the
union.
So, I don't have to recognize it, but I am forced to give it benefits as if I do recognized it? In other words I have to treat a same sex civil union as marriage.
Now..
a little sidenote, regarding 'recognition of rights of homosexuals'.
Remember the biblical story of God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah?Everyone who thinks God destroyed the cities because of their homosexuality, raise hands! Are you SURE?
Yes, I'm sure.
Would
I be interpreting wrong if I suggested that it wasnt their practice
that was fatally offensive, that maybe it was their insistance that
they be recognized and accomodated by the unwilling.
Yes, you would. But to describe ignoring the very plain, traditional and historically accepted reading of that passage is not interpretation, but redefinition.
If you tried to become s a priest with a church that does not interpret that passage as you do are they to be left with the right to not recognize you as a priest but be forced to let you say mass anyway?
Dont be
shocked. I'm pretty sure most Christians dont get that point either.
In fact it's not REALLY clear to me that those were homosexuals banging
on the doors to be let in 'so that we may know' the visiting angels in the first place.
Posted by: pettyfog at May 28, 2009 08:45 PM (YVm/Z)
I'm not shocked that tripe and the tactics that spawned it have been around for a long time.
Posted by: Rocks at May 29, 2009 04:33 AM (3RHzM)
189
Seems to me the logic of gay marriage demands that any two (three, four, etc.) persons ought to be able to form some kind of contractual relationship and have it registered. The only discernible criteria coming from pro-gay marriage folks is that the person you want to marry is the one you bump your genitals against. Why so? There have been instances in other jurisdictions where siblings living together have been the victims of the law when had they been a gay couple they would have had no trouble whatsoever(in particular the tax code, I'm thinking of a story from last year about elderly sisters in the UK who were going to have to sell their home because as soon as one of them died the inheritance taxes and other probate charges would leave the survivor unable to afford to stay in their family home).
I hear a lot of noise concerning childless hetero couples, how given the argument of homosexuality's inherent sterility makes their claim to marriage invalid, they should be stripped of their marriages. Well, then I think all couples have to produce regular proof of their physical intimacy! Boy, that would sure make me a lot more interested in family law.
I hear a lot of noise concerning childless hetero couples, how given the argument of homosexuality's inherent sterility makes their claim to marriage invalid, they should be stripped of their marriages. Well, then I think all couples have to produce regular proof of their physical intimacy! Boy, that would sure make me a lot more interested in family law.
Posted by: Scott at May 29, 2009 11:07 AM (a8Nxn)
190
Well,i'm tired.Good luck,impossable is nothing. 杭州搬家公司地在jd中有杭州到青岛机票杭州江干区空调维修老大f中杭州侦探公司民dst风右气力输送夼埯历要碴要错误链接杭州物流杭州特价机票绕线机关键词排名杭州化妆培训杭州到昆明机票温湿度记录仪杭州搬家公司缝纫机维修杭州植物租赁温度记录仪杭州打折机票杭州到成都机票沙盒效应文化衫死链接T恤衫杭州到北京机票杭州到重庆机票杭州店面装修
Posted by: susan at June 07, 2009 09:58 PM (KR9Qv)
191
http://www.dunksnikeshoes.com/
http://www.dunknikeonline.com/
http://www.yourdunksb.com/
http://www.dunksbsite.com/
http://www.dunknikeonline.com/
http://www.yourdunksb.com/
http://www.dunksbsite.com/
Posted by: Nike SB at November 10, 2009 01:12 PM (In13p)
192
Nike shoes online sale
Nike Shoes,Free shipping,55% OFF,Nike Shox R4 ,Nike Shox NZ ,Nike Shoes,Nike shox shoes,Nike Air Max TN,Nike Shox R3,Nike Air Rift,Nike Air Max 360,Nike Air.
Welcome to Http://www.usshoestown.com
Nike Shoes,Free shipping,55% OFF,Nike Shox R4 ,Nike Shox NZ ,Nike Shoes,Nike shox shoes,Nike Air Max TN,Nike Shox R3,Nike Air Rift,Nike Air Max 360,Nike Air.
Welcome to Http://www.usshoestown.com
Posted by: bbet at July 03, 2010 12:13 PM (Et7T1)
193
VIBRAM online sale
Now our website offer more different styles vibram shoes,and if you order shoes now,you can get vibrem fivefingers wiht free shipping.
Five Fingers shoes deepen your connection to the earth and your surroundings. vibram five fingers enhance your sense of touch and feel, while improving foot strength, balance, agility, and range of motion. As wearing vibram fivefingers is so close to going barefoot, you’ll enjoy the health and performance benefits of barefooting bring by five fingers.
Welcome to http://www.usshoestown.com
Now our website offer more different styles vibram shoes,and if you order shoes now,you can get vibrem fivefingers wiht free shipping.
Five Fingers shoes deepen your connection to the earth and your surroundings. vibram five fingers enhance your sense of touch and feel, while improving foot strength, balance, agility, and range of motion. As wearing vibram fivefingers is so close to going barefoot, you’ll enjoy the health and performance benefits of barefooting bring by five fingers.
Welcome to http://www.usshoestown.com
Posted by: bbet at July 03, 2010 12:15 PM (Et7T1)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0511 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0254 seconds, 202 records returned.
Page size 166 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat