California sees business boom from gay weddings

[gwilson]

Were you homeschooled in junior high and high school? You were obviously not a member of a fraternity in college. For you to blithly suggest that there aren't people out there who do things to fit in demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of human nature.

Notice I did not say I do not laugh at jokes "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", I specifically said I do not laugh at racist or sexist jokes. There is a difference. An example, I recently went fishing with a guide who all day long made jokes about Hillary Clinton being a d*ke. I find calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian to be offensive to lesbians. Oh, and I think d*ke is an ulgy word, too. He also used a choice word in jokes about Obama that starts with N. I explicitly said "racist or sexist". You deliberately changed my wording to a softer "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", - it was dishonest and proves that you couldn't actually come up with a decent retort to what I actually said, so you had to misrepresent what I had to say and attack that misrepresentation.

Also, note that I did not pass any judgement on people who tell racist or sexist jokes, I only said I don't laugh at them. so your sanctimonious accusation of me being judgmental is off the mark as well.

Talk about straw men. You do seem to be pretty judgemental.

[Subdude]

Oh stop taking yourself so seriously...

I will say that appointing yourself defender of the world's "belittled" is very noble of you.

Just posting snide personal remarks and pictures from cartoons or movies only serves to derail conversations. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't participate. I assume other posters don't want to end up with another locked topic, so drop the attitude.

[HtownWxBoy]

Previous thread was locked. I suppose that's my fault. Someone said "The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else." and I replied that made him sound like "a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids 'I was here first - go find your own.'" That got me a warning from "editor". Then that same person said that Pope Benedict 16 agrees that gay marriage is "pseudomarriage." I pointed out that Benedict also said noncatholic congregations weren't real churches. I said that was patronizing and demeaning for Benedict to say so. Someone else said "truth is truth. It's not Benedict 16's fault you can't see that." I replied "Dogma is dogma. Unfortunately you can't see that." At that point "editor" locked the thread. So, definitely my fault thread got locked. Sorry about that. It was not my intention, but with all of the intolerant things which had been posted in there for several pages, I don't think it was a big loss.

I'm not gay, and I'm not any kind of Christian, but I don't like to see belittling things said about any group, be they gay people, protestants, catholics, or anyone else, and so I'm going to say something about that. I guess here on HAIF, general comments about groups that border on defamation are tolerated, but my intolerance of intolerance is not tolerated. Try saying that three times fast.

You're a good person.

Just posting snide personal remarks and pictures from cartoons or movies only serves to derail conversations. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't participate. I assume other posters don't want to end up with another locked topic, so drop the attitude.

Uughh... then I am going to have to find ANOTHER news story related to gay marriage in California to start another topic! ha ha Sorry, another slow night at work... 4 and a half more hours to go!

[dbigtex56]

It's not a criticism of HAIF, specifically, it is a general observation about forums such as these where the moderators participate in discussions as well. It's not just me, there is an ongoing discussion in the internet ether about the phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily mean the moderators can't be fair or aren't being fair, the practice does however make them more vulnerable to the charge of being partisan than moderators who are silent until there is a dispute.

Trust me, I don't, and I hope you did not take my comments personally either.

To Editor's credit, he and I have some basic philosophic differences, yet he lets me moderate. We both strive to be respectful and fair. It takes some mental exercise to be both passionate and polite.

Back on topic....

[MidtownCoog]

Just posting snide personal remarks and pictures from cartoons or movies only serves to derail conversations. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't participate. I assume other posters don't want to end up with another locked topic, so drop the attitude.

I am afraid you don't get it. That comment was about understanding Reef's perspective.

His world view is that he has it all figure out. It's hard to debate with folks like that on topics like gay marriage.

Libs like that who demand understand seem to always be the least understanding of other's views.

And Red, don't worry about the Nuclear Family. They will be fine.

[Reefmonkey]

Talk about straw men.

It's best to actually know what a phrase means before you try to use it in an argument, gwilson:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]"

You do seem to be pretty judgemental.

If having a dim view of racism and sexism is judgemental, then yes, I am guilty as charged.

[Pumapayam]

So, how does it usually work out for the father of the bride, is there such a thing as father of the groom.

Are we back on topic. . .

You think there will be an increase in cake toppers with two men. Maybe you'd have to buy two sets and cut the women out. Maybe your can donate those left women to a lesbian wedding. . .

So the official state count is Vermont, California, and partially New York. Logically, I think Massachusetts is next because of P-town.

[RedScare]

His world view is that he has it all figure out.

And Red, don't worry about the Nuclear Family. They will be fine.

Pardon me for finding these two statements in the same post utterly amusing.

I'm not worried about the nuclear family, Coog. In fact, GWB claims Iran has a loaf in the oven as we speak.

[Pumapayam]

So when is Ellen marrying that hottie Porsche? Do you think Ellen likes it when people change topics on her show? I think Ellen would rather have people take off topic discussions off the air, in the privacy of a PM. It's her show, respect the topic given or change the channel. Man Porsche is cute. That's a lipstick lesbian for ya. . . . Can't wait too see that wedding. I am sure it will be televised, at least on her show.

[Reefmonkey]

Poor assumption #1:

His world view is that he has it all figure out. It's hard to debate with folks like that on topics like gay marriage.

I don't have any worldview figured out, just a consistent ethical system for treatment of my fellow people, based on - the golden rule, the categorical imperative, whatever you want to call it -treating people how I would like to be treated in their situation.

Poor assumption#2:

Libs like that who demand understand seem to always be the least understanding of other's views.

I disagree with your stance on this one issue, so therefore I must be a "Lib". I guess my desire to abolish Social Security and make everyone responsible for their own retirement makes me liberal too? How about my belief that (except for in cases of statutory rape) sex offenders who wish ever to be paroled must submit to chemical castration? How about my opposition to all affirmative action and racial quotas? How about my belief that the US nuclear weapon arsenal is the greatest peacekeeping system every devised, and we should never bow to foreign or domestic demands to reduce or dismantle it?

I have not made any assumptions about your political leanings in other areas, or about you in general, except that you haven't thought this issue through very well. I don't say that because your stance does not jibe with mine. If you disagreed with me and gave any reasons at all, that would be one thing. But you don't do that. You give flippant responses with no logic - sound or flawed - behind them. Example:

Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.

But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders.

Without Breeders there would be no gay people.

Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.

You just state your feelings about the issue. Okay, we get it, you don't like gay marriage. Use pragmatic, legal, heck, even moral arguments to justify them. But you don't do that. When people use pragmatic, legal and/or moral arguments to refute the positions you have forwarded but not supported, you resort to snide comebacks. It is not your position on this issue that subdude is objecting to, or even your dislike of me. Subdude and I don't know each other, I don't think he would particularly care if you insulted me, as long as most of your posts had actual substance to them (no matter how wrong we might think that substance is ). It's the fact that you bring no logic - sound or unsound, so you don't contribute to the discussion. That's what subdude is talking about.

[MidtownCoog]

I already said I support Civil Unions.

What else is there to say?

[CDeb]

I'm not worried about the nuclear family, Coog. In fact, GWB claims Iran has a loaf in the oven as we speak.

You see Red, I disagree with a ton of what you have to say. But I respect your opinions. And read them because of gems like this.

[houstonmacbro]

California sees business boom from gay weddings

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080604/ts_nm/...gays_tourism_dc

We gays are good at stimulating the economy, also!

And once Martha Stewart gets her claws into it, watch out.

[HtownWxBoy]

So, how does it usually work out for the father of the bride, is there such a thing as father of the groom.

Father of the "bottom". ha ha ha ha

So when is Ellen marrying that hottie Porsche? Do you think Ellen likes it when people change topics on her show? I think Ellen would rather have people take off topic discussions off the air, in the privacy of a PM. It's her show, respect the topic given or change the channel. Man Porsche is cute. That's a lipstick lesbian for ya. . . . Can't wait too see that wedding. I am sure it will be televised, at least on her show.

Seriously... you go Ellen!

[BryanS]

Together since 1957. 51 Years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...GAYMARRIAGE.TMP

Finally.

[houstonmacbro]

Together since 1957. 51 Years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...GAYMARRIAGE.TMP

Finally.

I guarantee you that someone (probably a Bible-toting right-winger) will claim that these little old ladies THREATEN them and their marriage.

LOL

[MidtownCoog]

I'm no right-winger, but those old hags kinda freak me out...

The worse part was seeing Gloria 'the undertaker' Steinem howling at the moon in joy. What a camera hog.

And old Mayor 'grusome' Newsom thinks this is his meal ticket to greater things. Talk about an agenda. Print It.

So far these sure don't look like any kind of weddings I've ever seen. They are more like a scripted media event/spectacle orchestrated by the courts.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Just curious as to what this means for the "Hundreds of Thousands flocking from all over the country", legally. If they do no live in California, is it going to be recognized legally in the state they do reside in? Or is this just something to get on a piece of paper that's not worth the coast of the paper it's printed on. If it's not legally binding outside of California, what's the use? You can stand up and take vows anywhere, and serve the same purpose if these California marriages are not legal elsewhere. I can't find where that question has been raised and or addressed. Not sure how other states will look at this so called ground breaking move by a State that has the highest divorce rate of any state, something like 80%, which implies that the majority of it's inhabitants really don't hold the act of being married so sacred anyway, since they change spouses like they change socks.

So far these sure don't look like any kind of weddings I've ever seen. They are more like a scripted media event/spectacle orchestrated by the courts.

This part of Coog's state may not be that far off... like just and act for the bragging rights more than an act of humanity. The whole thing is intriguing none the less.

[memebag]

Just curious as to what this means for the "Hundreds of Thousands flocking from all over the country", legally. If they do no live in California, is it going to be recognized legally in the state they do reside in?

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act gave states the right to refuse to recognize gay marriage performed in other states, I think.

[jayshoota]

I think the hundreds of thousands might have been a little bit of a stretch...

I don't think I would go there just to get a marriage license. I know it would not be recognized here because of DOMA. I will be quite happy with just a marriage ceremony here in Houston with my family and friends. Sure it would be nice to have it legally recognized by the government for legal/tax reasons but I know I am just going to have to wait for that. Like they teach in first year Constitutional Law, 30 years from now gay marriage won't even be an issue.

Btw, DOMA could be the most on its face unconstitutional bill ever written...

[Mark F. Barnes]

That's what several of the major networks are saying though, "Hundreds of Thousands of gay couples, are flocking from all over the country", stretch or no stretch. So being that at this time, outside of California, these marriages are not-recognized as legal, by the federal government or other states. Sounds more like the the State or California is exploiting the dire passion for these people to be married in a ceremony, to generate revenue. 35 years ago a marriage license cost me 15 bucks. Let's say the are 50 bucks now for arguments sake. If only 100,000 couples show up that's 5 million dollars, CNN was showing people that had camped out all night to be in line to get their license, you'd think they were giving away Led Zepplin tickets with them. Plus all the boost in the Hotel business around there for people that traveled from abroad, and are staying a night or two. Restaurant business as well, sounds like a master plan to boost this economic down-spiral, that is so widely claimed we are in.

[MidtownCoog]

They even said the County Courthouses were staying open late in order to grant the first licenses.

Since when does the County "stay open late"? Politics pure and simple.

[west20th]

They even said the County Courthouses were staying open late in order to grant the first licenses.

Since when does the County "stay open late"? Politics pure and simple.

They stayed open late because for some reason they could not perform marriages until after 5:01 on the 17th. They probably won't be open late after the first day.

Another related topic. Some county clerks are refusing to perform SS marriages. Should they be fired? IMO they should.

[Mark F. Barnes]

They stayed open late because for some reason they could not perform marriages until after 5:01 on the 17th. They probably won't be open late after the first day.

Another related topic. Some county clerks are refusing to perform SS marriages. Should they be fired? IMO they should.

Do the county "clerks" "perform" the ceremonies? That can't be too legal, they don't have authority to do that, just issue the license. Now if they refuse to issue the license, that's another issue all together. Most county clerks are elected officials, not sure you can just fire them, it may take some form of impeachment.

[west20th]

Do the county "clerks" "perform" the ceremonies? That can't be too legal, they don't have authority to do that, just issue the license. Now if they refuse to issue the license, that's another issue all together. Most county clerks are elected officials, not sure you can just fire them, it may take some form of impeachment.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=n...&id=6210007

[BryanS]

I'm no right-winger, but those old hags kinda freak me out...

Me too. Old people are just disgusting.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Me too. Old people are just disgusting.

And just what constitutes OLD?

[BryanS]

That's what several of the major networks are saying though, "Hundreds of Thousands of gay couples, are flocking from all over the country", stretch or no stretch. So being that at this time, outside of California, these marriages are not-recognized as legal, by the federal government or other states. Sounds more like the the State or California is exploiting the dire passion for these people to be married in a ceremony, to generate revenue. 35 years ago a marriage license cost me 15 bucks. Let's say the are 50 bucks now for arguments sake. If only 100,000 couples show up that's 5 million dollars, CNN was showing people that had camped out all night to be in line to get their license, you'd think they were giving away Led Zepplin tickets with them. Plus all the boost in the Hotel business around there for people that traveled from abroad, and are staying a night or two. Restaurant business as well, sounds like a master plan to boost this economic down-spiral, that is so widely claimed we are in.

First, CA is in an economic down-spiral, big time.

But you bring up a good point. Because this November, CA voters will face numerous items on the ballot. They will be asked to approve a half-cent sales tax increase to fund critical repairs to their crumbling infrastructure. They will also be asked to end marriage equality in the state. By way of CA law... voters must approve the tax increase with 67% of the vote. Yet they only need 51% of the vote on matters of civil rights. So in the end... they probably won't approve the funding they need to help fix their budget problems (by 67%+)... but will probably approve a measure to enshrine discrimination into their state constitution and further shutting off any public funding benefits that could have emerged otherwise. So they will probably shoot themselves in the foot... twice.

And just what constitutes OLD?

By the looks of it... defenseless women in their 80's. Maybe others could better answer your question...

[musicman]

By the looks of it... defenseless women in their 80's. Maybe others could better answer your question...

somebody's scurrying.

[houstonmacbro]

they probably won't approve the funding they need to help fix their budget problems (by 67%+)... but will probably approve a measure to enshrine discrimination into their state constitution and further shutting off any public funding benefits that could have emerged otherwise. So they will probably shoot themselves in the foot... twice.

Dummies.