Courage Campaign videoFollow

Man, for someone who doesn't hate America you sure do have a rhetoric-filled rant ready to spring on anyone who implies it, huh?

Lady doth protest too much, perhaps? Yeah, I think so.

It's okay, you hate America and wish her cities would be attacked so you'd feel better about your political views. We all get it.

I see no evidence that Joph hates anyone in the military; but let's say for the sake of argument that he does.

At least he's not praying for the slaughter of his countrymen.

Got a cite for that? Maybe something like....??

You know, if something like.....came to pass, Varrus's natty little state wouldn't have Illinois to sponge off of any more

Well, he never hoped for a major US city to be attacked by terrorists so I guess he's one up on you

You thoght I was defending the Dems??

You are a bit dim ar'n't you?

What about Perez vs. Sharp?

Liberal California Judicial decisions aside, Perez v. Sharp has as much relevance to Prop 8 as it does to a law stating the people can't marry dogs. You're arguing the slippery slope here, saying that since one case ruled that one type of law restricting who can marry was ruled unconstitutional, that this means that *all* such laws must be unconstitutional.

You need to explain to me how a restriction of marriage to a man and a woman is the same as prohibiting marriage between white people and negro, mulatto, mongolian, or malay people. You can't just hold up a decision and make an assumption about it.

Wait...waitwaitwait!

Huh? Wha--?

Did a muck-farming pig rancher from the tornado belt honestly just accuse a Pacific NW middle-class suburban stay-at-home-mom of being "tornado bait trailer trash?"

Seriously?

If I had smilies I'd be [:rofl:] right about now.



Edited, Feb 24th 2009 4:13pm by Ambrya

No. I said that the marriage benefits granted/mandated by the state are not "rights". The act of marriage, sans any government benefits, is most definitely a right. But then there's no legislation involved here either. As long as the government doesn't actually make it illegal for two people to exchange marriage vows, there's no right being infringed.

I spent about 3 posts trying to explain the difference. Why don't you go back and read what I've already written many many times?




Because that's not my position! Sheesh.


Once again. The issue is conflation of the act of two people marrying, and the benefits the state may grant to them for doing so. The confusion comes from the fact that we happened to name them both the same thing. If the legal status was called "Benefits to qualifying married couples" instead of the shorter "marriage", it would be much easier for many of you to grasp what I'm talking about. The state mandates a set of benefits which are granted to married couples, but those benefits, regardless of the name are not the same as "marriage" (the thing you have a right to do).


Thus. My position is that "marriage" is a right and all people should be able to enter into a state of marriage with the partner of their choice. However, any benefits the state may grant to couples who marry are *not* rights, and may certainly be conditioned based on the specific makeup of the marriage in question.



How many different ways do I have to say the same thing before you understand? See. Some of you keep insisting that you understand, you understand. Really, you do! Yet, I keep getting responses like this that clearly show that you don't actually understand. If you did, you wouldn't keep insisting that I believe that by denying gay couples the state mandated benefits of marriage that I'm denying them a right.

I don't believe that. I've stated repeatedly that this is *not* my position. If you don't believe that the right and the benefits can be separated, then by all means make that argument. But so far, no one actually has. They just keep droning on about how "marriage is a right". And when I explain that that's not what I'm talking about, they just pull up quotes from other people declaring marriage to be a right. All the while missing the whole point. It's not the "marriage" I'm talking about, but the benefits provided by the state.

Edited, Feb 24th 2009 5:16pm by gbaji

For trying to explain the difference between the act of doing something, and a reward someone might give you for doing that thing to the people on this forum? Yeah. That probably is stupid, and an exercise in futility. But I keep hoping one day...