Bush finally concerned about Bin Laden.

[Digger]

Who is banned?

Oh, Vrai hasn't banned you yet?

Gee, real nice standards you've got Vrai.

Using questionable language in replying to a bigoted post is wrong but bringing in forumites' girlfriends, wives, family members and etc into unrelated discussion is perfectly acceptable?

Cool, this forum is going to be a lot of fun.

 

[LesterGreen]

Oh, Vrai hasn't banned you yet?

Gee, real nice standards you've got Vrai.

Using questionable language in replying to a bigoted post is wrong but bringing in forumites' girlfriends, wives, family members and etc into unrelated discussion is perfectly acceptable?

Cool, this forum is going to be a lot of fun.

 

[Black-Francis]

And according to him I am you. He just does not realize more than one person is annoyed by him! And he lost his Premo Membership!

 

[Larry Gude]

Is marriage...

No, I cannot. I cannot marry a man. I cannot marry a relative. I cannot marry two women......

There's no discrimination in single sex marriage. No one is being singled out. No one, black, white, young old, male, female, hetero- or homosexual, etc., can marry someone of the same sex.

...a contract or no?

It requires a license from the state and it requires an official to execute the contract.

If marriage is a contract, a legal proceeding, how is it any different from any other contract, be it a business partnership, two friends buying a house or boat together or me buying your used car?

That's the key; how is it any different than any other legal association?

 

[Digger]

I didn't lose anything. :shrug:

I would be banned forever if I did reply to all your asinine so I won't say anything at all.

And it's funny that he's logged off when you're logged on. And for some reason the only people who seem to be that annoyed by me that they feel the need to stalk me and follow my every post are the forum idiots anyway.

 

[This_person]

You don't get it the DOMA allows other states to ignore the unions/marriage/whatever you want to call them. It isn't about the word.

I finally get it, you're using an abbreviation for Defense of Marriage Act from Bill Clinton. You referred to "DOMA states" first, so I thought it was something individual states were doing, not ALL 50.

The DOMA in it's text is contrary to that specific aspect of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment.

So, your problem is with the law from Bill Clinton, not the concept of civil union vs. marriage? Because, it sounds like that's where the problem is.

 

[This_person]

...a contract or no?

It requires a license from the state and it requires an official to execute the contract.

If marriage is a contract, a legal proceeding, how is it any different from any other contract, be it a business partnership, two friends buying a house or boat together or me buying your used car?

That's the key; how is it any different than any other legal association?

It's not, really. But, that's a good point. We don't call a sale of real estate a car sale, we call it a sale of real estate. We don't call a civil union a marriage, we call it a civil union. And, a marriage a marriage. It can easily have virtually the exact same conditions, but the parties involved make it a different type of transaction.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

It's not, really. But, that's a good point. We don't call a sale of real estate a car sale, we call it a sale of real estate. We don't call a civil union a marriage, we call it a civil union. And, a marriage a marriage. It can easily have virtually the exact same conditions, but the parties involved make it a different type of transaction.

...you are focusing on the specifics of the transaction. If I understand you, you are saying that yes, we can buy a handgun, but we can't buy a battleship. Both are, or could be, simple buy and sell contracts, but we allow one and not the other based on risk.

Is that fair to say, as an analogy?

I mean, no, we don't call a real estate transaction an automobile transaction, but, except for the specifics, car, house, bubble gum, it's all the same; it's a contract to which anyone may legally enter without restriction based on race, creed, color. Or sex life.

 

[This_person]

...you are focusing on the specifics of the transaction. If I understand you, you are saying that yes, we can buy a handgun, but we can't buy a battleship. Both are, or could be, simple buy and sell contracts, but we allow one and not the other based on risk.

Is that fair to say, as an analogy?

I mean, no, we don't call a real estate transaction an automobile transaction, but, except for the specifics, car, house, bubble gum, it's all the same; it's a contract to which anyone may legally enter without restriction based on race, creed, color. Or sex life.

I'm not following what you're asking me, so I think you don't understand what I'm saying.


Here's what I'm saying:

Similar contract in that it's a joining of two individuals to receive certain legal benefits. One is between a man and woman, therefore it's called a marriage. One is between person A and person B who are the same sex, therefore it's called a civil union (because it doesn't fit the definition of the word marriage). Same rights, responsibilities, etc, but has a different name as it is between different types of parties. Sort of like differences in a sales contract between businesses and between individuals, etc. They are virtually the same, but on different forms because of the significant differences in types of parties involved.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

Similar contract in that it's a joining of two individuals to receive certain legal benefits. One is between a man and woman, therefore it's called a marriage. One is between person A and person B who are the same sex, therefore it's called a civil union (because it doesn't fit the definition of the word marriage). Same rights, responsibilities, etc, but has a different name as it is between different types of parties. Sort of like differences in a sales contract between businesses and between individuals, etc. They are virtually the same, but on different forms because of the significant differences in types of parties involved.

...the whole argument is about semantics?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I'm not following what you're asking me, so I think you don't understand what I'm saying.


Here's what I'm saying:

Similar contract in that it's a joining of two individuals to receive certain legal benefits. One is between a man and woman, therefore it's called a marriage. One is between person A and person B who are the same sex, therefore it's called a civil union (because it doesn't fit the definition of the word marriage). Same rights, responsibilities, etc, but has a different name as it is between different types of parties. Sort of like differences in a sales contract between businesses and between individuals, etc. They are virtually the same, but on different forms because of the significant differences in types of parties involved.

Main Entry:
mar·riage Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Main Entry: 1married Function: adjective Date: 14th century 1 a: being in the state of matrimony : wedded b: of or relating to marriage : connubial2: united, joined

:shrug:

So, while marriage is defined in the religious culture as a marriage between a man and a woman, the technical term is very broad. Open to interpreation.

And, since there's seperation of church and state, the government cannot define marriage to it's religious terms since we are not a church state.

 

[Xaquin44]

Thank you Andy

anyone else have any complaints?

 

[Ken King]

I finally get it, you're using an abbreviation for Defense of Marriage Act from Bill Clinton. You referred to "DOMA states" first, so I thought it was something individual states were doing, not ALL 50.So, your problem is with the law from Bill Clinton, not the concept of civil union vs. marriage? Because, it sounds like that's where the problem is.

Factually, the DOMA isn't from Bill Clinton, just his era. The bill that was passed into law originated in the 104th Congress, was introduced by Bob Barr, and had significant support of both the House and Senate. Just so we're clear, I'm not Clinton bashing.

The reality is that I could care less what the joining of two people might be called only in how it is treated and respected by all of the states. The issue, for me, is that the passage of DOMA allows the many states to be indifferent to the legal acts of another state. This, in my mind, is a matter of a law violating explicit functioning of the Constitution in contrast to what is called for in the full faith and credit clause. Furthermore, as I see it, the fact that marriage has always been a state right as to the determination of what constitutes a legal marriage and a personal right as to who one marries it is in violation of the provisions of both the 9th and 10th Amendment. And lastly, as it allows states to ignore the acts of other states it steps contrary to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

 

[This_person]

...the whole argument is about semantics?

That's what the argument was in California, the most recent lawsuit, yes.

They had civil unions, but that wasn't good enough. There was no legal difference between the union and a marriage, but that wasn't good enough. It had to be called "marriage" to make some people happy.

 

[This_person]

:shrug:

So, while marriage is defined in the religious culture as a marriage between a man and a woman, the technical term is very broad. Open to interpreation.

And, since there's seperation of church and state, the government cannot define marriage to it's religious terms since we are not a church state.

You must have ignored where I said the word was defined for hundreds of years as between a man and a woman, and was only changed when the "progressive" movement decided to make it a talking point.

But, you keep spouting crap if it makes you feel good. I'm sure your cheerleader will love it.

 

[This_person]

Factually, the DOMA isn't from Bill Clinton, just his era. The bill that was passed into law originated in the 104th Congress, was introduced by Bob Barr, and had significant support of both the House and Senate. Just so we're clear, I'm not Clinton bashing.

My only point was who signed, vice vetoed it.

The reality is that I could care less what the joining of two people might be called only in how it is treated and respected by all of the states. The issue, for me, is that the passage of DOMA allows the many states to be indifferent to the legal acts of another state. This, in my mind, is a matter of a law violating explicit functioning of the Constitution in contrast to what is called for in the full faith and credit clause. Furthermore, as I see it, the fact that marriage has always been a state right as to the determination of what constitutes a legal marriage and a personal right as to who one marries it is in violation of the provisions of both the 9th and 10th Amendment. And lastly, as it allows states to ignore the acts of other states it steps contrary to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

If your concern is that marriage is a state right, I could certainly agree with that. If your concern is that the Constitution requires one state to acknowledge the other state's information, I agree.

 

[Larry Gude]

The...

That's what the argument was in California, the most recent lawsuit, yes.

They had civil unions, but that wasn't good enough. There was no legal difference between the union and a marriage, but that wasn't good enough. It had to be called "marriage" to make some people happy.

...lawsuit was because they were denied a marriage license, right?

 

[This_person]

...lawsuit was because they were denied a marriage license, right?

Right. They were given a civil union license instead of a marriage license. The argument was over what list of rights should be called, a union or a marriage.

 

[LesterGreen]

And it's funny that he's logged off when you're logged on..

wrong again! I don't need an MPD son.....I am not afraid to speak my mind and I don't need to hide behind another account. Sorry Detective!

 

[Larry Gude]

And...

Right. They were given a civil union license instead of a marriage license. The argument was over what list of rights should be called, a union or a marriage.

...all Cali has to do is just give them a marriage license and, viola.

Applying for a Marriage License in California