HtownWxBoy Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Link By GLENN ADAMS, Associated Press Writer Glenn Adams, Associated Press Writer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travelguy_73 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 The more laws that pass via the legislature (the "voice of the people") and not the courts, and the more marriages opponents and the apathetic see that the sky doesn't fall, the easier it will be on the rest of the states to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Noooooo!!!! Not where the Bush family spend their summers!!!! Looks like New Hampshire will follow: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6411239.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 How about that? God Bless Maine.Possible scenario:1.) Signatures will be gathered, it will be subject to a "People's Veto." This will immediately suspend the effect of the law; no gay marriages until the next election cycle.2.) The item to be voted upon, in the referendum, will be titled: "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage And Affirm Religious Freedom."3.) Given the brilliance of the Maine legislature to pass the measure, with that title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Either path... Gay marriage will come to Maine, eventually. It remains tragic that fundamental rights, such as these, are subject to popular vote.I'm all on board about treating people of different sexual orientations equally...but I still have difficulty understanding why the institution of marriage should be considered a "fundamental right" of anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm all on board about treating people of different sexual orientations equally...but I still have difficulty understanding why the institution of marriage should be considered a "fundamental right" of anybody.The "fundamental rights" are the rights the government gives to married couples once they get married. These rights are denied to gay couples. Just like with other civil rights issues in our Nation's history... a snowball effect will eventually ensue... it's already beginning... this will eventually lead to gay marriage being legal throughout the U.S.... people will then look back and wonder why these rights were ever denied to gay couples the way we look back and wonder why interracial marriage was ever illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Uh oh, Miss California is gonna be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 Uh oh, Miss California is gonna be pissed.I think she has other things to worry about right now... looks like she might lose her crown for posing semi-nude when she was younger and for lying to pageant officials about how many times she did this. Link to Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think she has other things to worry about right now... looks like she might lose her crown for posing semi-nude when she was younger and for lying to pageant officials about how many times she did this. Link to StoryI really don't see the problem with that. It's a freakin pageant, they're supposed to be hot. And how is she supposed to make money other than with her body? Clearly her brain isn't gonna cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 I really don't see the problem with that. It's a freakin pageant, they're supposed to be hot. And how is she supposed to make money other than with her body? Clearly her brain isn't gonna cut it.The problem is that before they enter the pageant they sign a contract stating that they have never "posed nude or semi-nude". If they have they are not allowed in the pageant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I really don't see the problem with that. It's a freakin pageant, they're supposed to be hot. And how is she supposed to make money other than with her body? Clearly her brain isn't gonna cut it.Yes, however it is fun to see someone bloviating about family values suddenly defending naked pictures she took when she was younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 Yes, however it is fun to see someone bloviating about family values suddenly defending naked pictures she took when she was younger. Don't forget her lying to pageant officals about how many "photos" she took... she told them it was only the one when she knew there were others... TMZ Link Since when did lying and pornography become Christian values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The "fundamental rights" are the rights the government gives to married couples once they get married. These rights are denied to gay couples. Just like with other civil rights issues in our Nation's history... a snowball effect will eventually ensue... it's already beginning... this will eventually lead to gay marriage being legal throughout the U.S.... people will then look back and wonder why these rights were ever denied to gay couples the way we look back and wonder why interracial marriage was ever illegal.You missed my point. Equal protection is all fine and well, and I agree that it'll be extended to homosexuals in time.I merely question whether marriage is a right, much less a fundamental right. The net effect of legislation related to marriages is primarily financial in scope--for instance, the ability to file income taxes jointly or to access federal survivorship benefits--but is the mode of access to those things a "fundamental right" such as is on par with freedoms of speech, association, religion, or voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You missed my point. Equal protection is all fine and well, and I agree that it'll be extended to homosexuals in time.I merely question whether marriage is a right, much less a fundamental right. The net effect of legislation related to marriages is primarily financial in scope--for instance, the ability to file income taxes jointly or to access federal survivorship benefits--but is the mode of access to those things a "fundamental right" such as is on par with freedoms of speech, association, religion, or voting?No.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...-DuVuwD97U8SLG0AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Don't forget her lying to pageant officals about how many "photos" she took... she told them it was only the one when she knew there were others...TMZ Link Since when did lying and pornography become Christian values? Those must have been put in as values the same time smugness was...seriously, Christians are flawed just like everyone else. So does it do any good (tax and other benefit reasons) for gays to ship off to Maine or the other few states to get married (then go back home), or does it have to be legal within their state of residence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 Those must have been put in as values the same time smugness was...seriously, Christians are flawed just like everyone else. So does it do any good (tax and other benefit reasons) for gays to ship off to Maine or the other few states to get married (then go back home), or does it have to be legal within their state of residence?It has to be legal in their state of residence to get the rights awarded with marriage... some places will recognize the rights even though they won't grant them themselves, but Texas does neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Marriage as a fundamental right was established in 1967, Loving v. Virgina.Yes, well I dispute that finding.To me, it seems clear that there is a need for marriage reform. That should be the bigger issue. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no compelling reason for anybody to want to be married in the eyes of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 Yes, well I dispute that finding.To me, it seems clear that there is a need for marriage reform. That should be the bigger issue. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no compelling reason for anybody to want to be married in the eyes of the law.No compelling reason? Well, here are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 No compelling reason? Well, here are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.Having seen how many ways there are that marriage affects people (in ways that are unfathomable to the vast majority of the population, even among lawyers)...I'm even more pissed off that the issue being discussed isn't marriage reform. And reading through the list of rights and benefits on the page you linked to, my assertion that the implications of these laws are primarily financial in scope seems reasonable.You have strengthened my opinion on the matter. I want marriage reform, now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Having seen how many ways there are that marriage affects people (in ways that are unfathomable to the vast majority of the population, even among lawyers)...I'm even more pissed off that the issue being discussed isn't marriage reform. And reading through the list of rights and benefits on the page you linked to, my assertion that the implications of these laws are primarily financial in scope seems reasonable.You have strengthened my opinion on the matter. I want marriage reform, now!A relative that hadn't seen her family for awhile was asking my brother in law about several family members. "So how is Tom, is he married, and Bob, married?" "And what about Betsy, is she married?" My brother in law answered in a way that I thought was genius. He replied, "Oh no, Betsy isn't allowed to get married." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The Ms. CA kerfluffle is telling me a lot more about her antagonists than it is about her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Having seen how many ways there are that marriage affects people (in ways that are unfathomable to the vast majority of the population, even among lawyers)...I'm even more pissed off that the issue being discussed isn't marriage reform. And reading through the list of rights and benefits on the page you linked to, my assertion that the implications of these laws are primarily financial in scope seems reasonable.Well, there's the 5th Amendment. You can't be compelled to incriminate yourself or your spouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Having seen how many ways there are that marriage affects people (in ways that are unfathomable to the vast majority of the population, even among lawyers)...I'm even more pissed off that the issue being discussed isn't marriage reform. And reading through the list of rights and benefits on the page you linked to, my assertion that the implications of these laws are primarily financial in scope seems reasonable.You have strengthened my opinion on the matter. I want marriage reform, now!I couldn't agree more. All so-called marriage rights should be allowed to be conferred contractually between any 2 partners, gay, straight or otherwise, without state-sanctioned 'marriage' entering into it. This is probably overly cynical, but does anyone wonder if states are coming on board with gay marriage now, because they see it as a way to generate revenue in a bad economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 A relative that hadn't seen her family for awhile was asking my brother in law about several family members. "So how is Tom, is he married, and Bob, married?" "And what about Betsy, is she married?" My brother in law answered in a way that I thought was genius. He replied, "Oh no, Betsy isn't allowed to get married."I'm going to guess that the relative was probably more interested in your social status than your legal status. And that's perfectly fine.Well, there's the 5th Amendment. You can't be compelled to incriminate yourself or your spouse.The 5th Amendment doesn't say that, and by my reading of it, there is no justification for such an interpretation.Marriage reform, now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The 5th Amendment doesn't say that, and by my reading of it, there is no justification for such an interpretation.Google privileged communication and you'll find that husband and wife can't be compelled to testify against each other in most cases about communications between them. The same privilege should be extended to those in homosexual relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Marriage reform, now!Civil unions for everybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Google privileged communication and you'll find that husband and wife can't be compelled to testify against each other in most cases about communications between them. The same privilege should be extended to those in homosexual relationships. Why is it that so many people on this thread seem to have issues with reading comprehension? For the last time: I'm all for equal protection, but I'm entirely against the special treatment of married persons under the law. You people are citing legal precedent to me as though it is infallible and as though ethics ought to be derived from the legal tradition rather than the other way around. Do you not see any absurd irony in that!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Civil unions for everybody?I would've been cool with that until HtownWxBoy cited the 1,138 statutory instances where married (or presumably people engaged in civil unions) are treated differently. Reform is definitely called for, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Civil unions for everybody?I totally agree. That'd really bring wedding costs down.I really wish that they would use the term Civil Unions rather than Gay Marriage. IMO the topic would be far less controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm all for equal protection, but I'm entirely against the special treatment of married persons under the law.Okay, I agree with that. As a practical example, I don't see why a married person gets special tax privileges or tax cuts denied to those of us that are single at the same pay scale. These legal benefits to marriage are easily viewed as punishments for being single. It's even more aggravating when marriage is prohibited because of sexual orientation because you have no choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.