CA Gay Marriage...VOIDED!

[Steve]

Re: When you get back...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
But, the inevitable opening of the barn doors, so to speak, will invite a group of 3 or 5 (or other most likely odd number) of transexual, transvestite, transgender, gay, straight, or whatevers demanding a marriage liscense for the group.

This is a very good point. Why are "traditional" Mormons persecuted? Why can't I pick up a second wife, or Christy a second husband? Is it morally reprehensible, even if we three agree to it and uphold the union? Legally binding contracts concerning property, childcare, etc. could be created just as it is between a man and a woman today. In fact, the only difference I can think of is that Common Law is already set up to quickly acknowledge "husband and wife" marriages. That's all.

If Jack and Jill get married on Sunday, and Jack dies on Monday, will Jill get Jack's stuff if Jill isn't in his will? Or will Jill soend the next year in estate court fighting for her house?

We had to get a will established to ensure that neither of us would lose out on property rights, etc. even though we were married. It was a quick and easy process though, becuase we are husband and wife. Why should it be so much harder for homosexuals? Or a threesome?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
The DMA(Defense of Marriage ACT)... In at least 37 state constitutions...

That's not the same as the federal Constitution, and I agree with Larry that any law prohibiting gay marriage probably isn't constitutional.

 

[BuddyLee]

I think the gay population is certainly rising. With this rise I see a stronger voice for the group as a whole. It is only a matter of time before some sort of action is taken.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
I agree to the committment part, but in no way do I think two homosexuals should be raising children. I'm sorry... I will never agree with you on that, no matter how much we were to debate about it...

That's fine - we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Larry Gude]

Steve O...

(ouch! ouch! ouch!!!!)

See if you remember THAT Steve O!!!!!)

I think it's pretty plain to see that for the betterment of all civilizations it has always been, mostly, a man and a woman and their brood. It's simple. It's biologically logical and easier to keep track of.

If we lived in a communist state where there are no property rights, no rights to work place benefits (because there are none!)
nothing to inherit or pass on in the event of death then, clearly, the concept of a gay union is simply absurd. For what?

Conversely, a union of man and woman with their kids still makes sense as a matter of order in the society. "Who does this BRAT belong to!?!!?"

Gay marriage is one more symptom of how successful our society actually is.

 

[Larry Gude]

I apologize for calling Buddy Lee...

...an idiot.

I think the gay population is certainly rising. With this rise I see a stronger voice for the group as a whole. It is only a matter of time before some sort of action is taken.

Where'd you read that, other side of a Snapple cap?

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not saying it is or is not...

and I agree with Larry that any law prohibiting gay marriage probably isn't constitutional.

I just wanna hear an argument as to how one would accomplish it and have it stand.

We have all kinds of things that are un-Constitutional that are facts of life:

Our gun laws.

Legal abortion.

The modern Democratic Party.

(Anyone notice a pattern?)

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: Steve O...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
(ouch! ouch! ouch!!!!)

See if you remember THAT Steve O!!!!!)

I think it's pretty plain to see that for the betterment of all civilizations it has always been, mostly, a man and a woman and their brood. It's simple. It's biologically logical and easier to keep track of.

If we lived in a communist state where there are no property rights, no rights to work place benefits (because there are none!)
nothing to inherit or pass on in the event of death then, clearly, the concept of a gay union is simply absurd. For what?

Conversely, a union of man and woman with their kids still makes sense as a matter of order in the society. "Who does this BRAT belong to!?!!?"

Gay marriage is one more symptom of how successful our society actually is.

Excellent point. However, just because a couple marries does not necessarily mean they will produce children. This is the case with gay couples. They cannot produce children, it's impossible. They cannot produce children before or after marriage. So who cares if they marry. They're genes will not live on.

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: I apologize for calling Buddy Lee...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...an idiot.





Where'd you read that, other side of a Snapple cap?

Common sense. I'd hope you wouldn't think it was declining.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
There's a societal benefit to having committed people raising the future generation. That's why marriage is government sanctioned and why they should also let gays marry.

I agree with the first part, but is that what marriage actually does? I know that was the intent of marriage, but there are many couples that do not have children. How many gay couples will not adopt (or possibly get inseminated for the lesbians)? Where is the benefit to the government from those couples? How many children are raised by single parents that were originally married? I think marriage is failing to meet the benefit of "having committed people raising the future generation".

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Plus, I like the idea of being married. Maybe it's just the whole stigma of shacking up that has been impressed upon me by Rush Limbaugh but I like having legal and societal recognition of mine and Larry's union. He's not just my live-in that I can throw out on a whim - he's my husband and there's an implied committment that goes along with that.

I respect that, but do you those feelings from the government or from the church?

Let me try to put my opinion another way. I think the system is broken in several places. The gay issue is only one broken part. Among the people that think the "gay issue" is a broken part of the system, they mainly want to plug the holes and keep going. I think we need to replace the system with a better one. I think we need a system that is not only equally applied, but also benefits the government and society the way it was supposed to.

 

[ylexot]

Re: Re: I apologize for calling Buddy Lee...

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Common sense. I'd hope you wouldn't think it was declining.

I thought it pretty much stayed even (percentage-wise). However, it appears to be on the rise because it is more socially accepted and, therefore, more gays are "out of the closet" and more visible.

 

[Steve]

Re: Steve O...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
(ouch! ouch! ouch!!!!)

See if you remember THAT Steve O!!!!!)

I remember Steve-O.

I think it's pretty plain to see that for the betterment of all civilizations it has always been, mostly, a man and a woman and their brood. It's simple. It's biologically logical and easier to keep track of.

It is biologically necessary for species proliferation. I don't know what you mean by "keep track of". Polygyny is wide-spread in the Middle East and Africa. They don't seem to have a problem with it. And they've instituted legal safeguards for the women in many countries.

If we lived in a communist state where there are no property rights, no rights to work place benefits (because there are none!)
nothing to inherit or pass on in the event of death then, clearly, the concept of a gay union is simply absurd. For what?

I agree, marriages are about legal rights to property, children, etc. Nothing more.

Conversely, a union of man and woman with their kids still makes sense as a matter of order in the society. "Who does this BRAT belong to!?!!?"

I have no legal right to my stepson. I have never adopted him. If Christy were to die, her ex could challenge custody. This would be no different, I would guess, in a "civil union".

Gay marriage is one more symptom of how successful our society actually is.

I would argue that gay unions can be found throughout history, not just today.

 

[Larry Gude]

And another thing...

That's not the same as the federal Constitution

And Def of Mar act is subject at some point to the Supreme Courts approval as the rights of marriage are a matter of interstate commerce.

In otherwords, if you're married in Maryland, you're married in Pennsylvania. If you have a drivers liscense in one, you do in the other.

The Def of Marriage acts will need to be, if they work, like gun laws where California says, un-Constitutionaly BTW, 'we do not recognize a Virginia permit to carry a concealed weapon".

California is wrong and, I suspect, Marylands definition of man and woman will at some point be proven un Constitutional.

Guns aren't popular. Gay marriage is all the rage.

 

[Larry Gude]

BL...

Excellent point. However, just because a couple marries does not necessarily mean they will produce children. This is the case with gay couples. They cannot produce children, it's impossible. They cannot produce children before or after marriage. So who cares if they marry. They're genes will not live on.

OK. You're not paying enough attention. Ever hear of Mellissa Etheridge? The 'married' lez? Know who the daddy of her bio baby is?

They can produce children. They do.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good point...

Polygyny is wide-spread in the Middle East and Africa. They don't seem to have a problem with it.

But they aren't us! We're cool. They suck. They should do it our way!

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: BL...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
OK. You're not paying enough attention. Ever hear of Mellissa Etheridge? The 'married' lez? Know who the daddy of her bio baby is?

They can produce children. They do.

True. But...

Does being married constitute that you will in fact have children?

This is a separate issue in which some or most will not take advantage of.

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: Buddy Lee...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...add something substantive or go away.

Idiot.

But they aren't us! We're cool. They suck. They should do it our way!

 

[Larry Gude]

What?

What?

 

[BuddyLee]

Re: What?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
What?

 

[Ken King]

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 seems to be directly contrary to the provisions of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As the laws of this nation are to be in accordance with the intent of our Constitution and amendments I would expect that if challenged and accepted by the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality it would fail as it immediately states that the States do not have to honor “marriage” agreements between same-sex couples made in another state.