Waste of time.Follow

IMO, if someone were to ask me, the correct solution to the problem isn't to pass an ammendment, but simply change the federal laws so that marriage in one state is no longer a marriage in all states.

Good idea. Some one should have thought of that in, oh..1996 or something.

Christ you really are a stupid ******* huh?


For the first time in my Alla life, I agree with you gbaji.


You're probably stupider.

If the most "stupider" person on the planet thinks that oranges are orange, I'll agree with him.

Also if he says it's purple apparently.

I'm confused. This helps protect the family...HOW?

Let's say I'm taking a vacation to Florida with my family. My husband chokes to death on wing in a restaurant. Are you saying that I should be denied the rights I get as a widow, and my child as legitimate, because he passed away in a state where technically, we're just partners? I don't get to id the body, make decisions as next-of-kin, anything? Or do you think it would be best to leave this kind of thing as a matter for FL and IL to duke out while I grieve?

This is asinine, and puts us right back where the 13 colonies were at the time of Revolution.

And, it's dead.

I can cover this for you.

If you allow same sex marriage, then gays will marry each other!

The strangest things make you smile.

I understand the mechanics and consequences of gay marriage, thanks.

I was talking about arguments, as in gay people shouldn't get married because:

- it will lead to the breakdown of the institution that is marriage (though surely divorce should be the main culprit)

- it will encourage others to become gay (doesn't seem like the ancient greeks needed it)

- insert other random idiotic bigoted comment here


By the way funny story (not funny as in "haha", but more as in "ooh", well maybe not "ooh" as such, but "ah", or "who cares", anyway) regarding the origins of homophobia in Africa.

In pre-colonisation Uganda, homosexuality was extremely common. The King used to have "page boys" that were bascially boys he would shag. Until the Christian missionaries came, and converted people. One of their doctrines was of course that homosexualityw as a sin. So the Page Boys converted, and refused to submit to the sexual desires of the King, who therefore decided to burn them. This turned them into martyrs, and helped the religion to get propagated further.

Anyway, it's better explained, and in more details, here.

So, funny (well, not funny "haha", but etc...) some of the most homophobic countries in the world are that way because we converted them!

Qui seme le vent recolte la tempete, as they say.

Edited, Wed Jun 7 11:09:19 2006 by RedPhoenixxxxxx

Whoo-hoo! Mandingo!

Now, I am 100% for gay marriage. But I also respect the fact that some people are bigoted rednecks that have their own beliefs, and that in a democracy, people choose how they are goverened, and what laws to apply.

Hi. Civil War. Look into it.

I don't need your civil war,
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor,
you're power-hungry selling soldiers in a
human grocery store (ain't that fresh?)

That one?









Prick.

Edited, Jun 7th 2006 at 1:13pm EST by RedPhoenixxxxxx

Actually, I was talking about something that affected *all* marriage, not just gay marriages. The point being that this would have to be considered "fair" by all parties, where the DOMA is not.

The point of this is to separate the legal status of "married" from the civil contracts that typically accompany marriage. The biggest objection to gay marriage is not the civil contracts, but the legal status. Because the legal status comes from the government, provides specific benefits, and comes at a "cost" to everyone. But the civil contract aspect of marriage does not, since it's just about contracts between two people.


So Joph's concern that if his spouse were to die in an accident while travelling in another state is moot. Things like inheritance, power of attorney, etc, are part of the civil contracts. Those would not (should not) be changed. But you could not apply for a housing credit from that state if you did not gain the status of "married" from that state. On a side note, all of the civil contract aspects of marriage are already available to gay couples. In fact, they're available to *any* two people (and more in some cases) who wish to obtain them. They're just not currently bundled into a convenient package outside of marriage.


This also ties back into the idea of a marriage amendment defining marriage as one between a man and a woman. Doing this does not prevent in any way, the formation of a "civil union" carrying all the civil contract aspects any two people might want or need. The objective is to allow that to exist *without* also requiring federal level status and benefits to that same status. In an odd way, the amendment would actually pave the way for such unions, since most of the people who oppose them do so purely because of the fear that they'd just be used as a stepping stone towards gay marriage. Put an amendment in place, and that can't happen, and the opposition largely disapates, and gay couples can more easily gain benefits and rights that they want.


It's just that this particular topic is always amusing in how the two sides tend to miss eachother's arguments. The people opposed to gay marriage are most opposed because they don't want the legal status of marriage to be changed. They don't care at all about power of attorneys and such. And the people pushing hardest for gay marriage don't care that much about the legal status. They want the civil contract aspect of marriage. They want to be able to make decisions about their partner's health. They want to be able to inherit their partner's estate. They want to be able to adopt their partner's child(ren).

There really is a middle ground here. Which is why I always try to express this issue in terms of a separation between the legal status of marriage and the civil contract of marriage. They really are two different things. Traditionally, we lump both into a "marriage". But in order to make room for both sides, it simply makes more sense to separate them and apply them to each as they make the most sense. In that way, both side get what they want.

Edited, Jun 7th 2006 at 9:23pm EST by gbaji

Not following you there Smash. How does a law that applies to all marriages equally at a federal level become a "separate but equal" issue? DOMA right now *is*. My proposal is not.

How does a law that applies to all marriages equally at a federal level become a "separate but equal" issue?

Oh it's not really. It's just laughbly riddled with completely unworkable consequences that would have taken to long to bother with.