HtownWxBoy Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex....iage/index.html Great News on the advancement of equal rights... it's only a matter of time before it's the entire US... I guarantee it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I don't think there should be a law either way. It isn't for the government to decide. If there IS to be a law, it should be decided upon by the people, not politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So I have a question, as this is something I know nothing about. In states that don't have an explicit ban on gay marriage, is it legal by default? Are there marriage laws that restrict on anything besides age? I would think it's like getting a driver's license. You're old enough, you pay, get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) Don't breakout the Belini's and Petifore cakes just yet. There is a petition and there is gonna be an injunction by the far right breeders.Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony. Edited May 16, 2008 by TJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony."HOLY" matrimony? Really? That's what Texas state law says? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) "HOLY" matrimony? Really? That's what Texas state law says? ALRIGHT, you caught me ! But in the normal realm of the world outside of Liberalland it is referred to as "Holy Matrimony !" For the sake of argument, the union of one male one female ONLY . ......for those who can't be bothered to look it up. http://austin.about.com/od/governmentcitys...rriageamend.htm Edited May 16, 2008 by TJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 ALRIGHT, you caught me ! But in the normal realm of the world outside of Liberalland it is referred to as "Holy Matrimony !" For the sake of argument, one male one female. Actually, it is "one man and one woman". Strike two... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em!Although I am not a fan of activist judges, anything that gives equal rights to American citizens is OK in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 ...and, it is "marriage", not "matrimony".Steeeeeeeerike threeeee!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) ...and, it is "marriage", not "matrimony".Steeeeeeeerike threeeee!!!!!!!Nobody says "Holy Marriage".........see, that's why you NEED to go to church !!!HOMERUN !!! The game is OVER !!! Edited May 16, 2008 by TJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted May 16, 2008 Author Share Posted May 16, 2008 Nobody says "Holy Marriage".........see, that's why you NEED to go to church !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Don't take that too literally Htown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayshoota Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em!Yeah, applying the Constitution to invalidate a law really makes them activist...I guess the judges who struck down the ban on interraicial marriage in Loving v. Virginia were activist judges too??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwilson Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Don't breakout the Belini's and Petifore cakes just yet. There is a petition and there is gonna be an injunction by the far right breeders.Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony.Comments like this annoy the crap out of me. It is another example of the double standards. Breeders is, by the context it is generally used, a deragotory term (it isn't inherently deragotory, just like every other word), but in this context, that is its intent. Double standards just annoy me.That said, it isn't just far right that has a problem with gay marriage. I think the argument made by most that it affects the sanctity of marriage is idiotic, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't even close to being a right wing thing.There should be no laws regarding marriage at all (regulating who can and cannot enter in to marriage). To the person who said they don't like activist judges but support this, that is a huge problem. It is not a judges job, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, to make/change law. We should be VERY, VERY scared of judges who take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench and usurp the power of the legislative branches and the will of the people.Yeah, applying the Constitution to invalidate a law really makes them activist...I guess the judges who struck down the ban on interraicial marriage in Loving v. Virginia were activist judges too???Since this happens to be a consitutional matter (not the rights of one group vs the other, but that marriage itself should not be defined by law), the judge was within their right. However, it has been an alarmingly popular trend of late for judges to legislate from the bench based on political agendas/views and not the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Huray for Activist Judges! God love 'em!Would you prefer lazy, inactivist judges? I want activist judges - they need to earn their pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Since this happens to be a consitutional matter (not the rights of one group vs the other, but that marriage itself should not be defined by law), the judge was within their right. However, it has been an alarmingly popular trend of late for judges to legislate from the bench based on political agendas/views and not the constitution.Judges can never legislate from the bench. Ever. I am not aware of any judicial jurisdiction, local, state, or federal, in this country were a judge has drafted up, passed, and signed legislation. They render decision on law (passed and signed by other bodies of government), carefully weighing individual rights against constitutional principles so as to ensure that the contract that you have between yourself and your government (via a constitution) is not trampled by a tyrannical majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) Don't breakout the Belini's and Petifore cakes just yet. There is a petition and there is gonna be an injunction by the far right breeders.Marriage, as defined by the state of Texas, is the legal joining of one male and one female in holy matrimony.Bingo. Here is the what the good people of CA are going to be voting on, in Nov (more than likely):"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"...and here is a link to the group, that is behind the amendment: ProtectMarriage.com...To amend the CA constitution... all you need is 50%+1 vote to do it. Even if you think gays and lesbians should be afforded equal access to marriage... how many of us out there could actually answer "No" to that simple, 14 word sentence?We've always heard, from those who oppose gay rights, that gay rights are "special rights." Well... if a majority of people amend the CA constitution, as can reasonably be expected, then what you'll have on your hands will not only be a case of "special rights" but an entire special class of people out there. That is, between roughly July and November, when equal marriage is legal, you're going to have a lot people getting married who couldn't do it before. And then, that will end in November, more than likely. Even if the amendment passes, you cannot retroactively reverse/annul those marriages - you just can't perform any new ones. Meaning, the younger, upcoming generation will be denied rights that the older, previous generation enjoyed; a step backwards. Way to go.So in the zeal to "protect marriage" (from people who are armed with no weapons)... you create a special class. And by doing so... all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, over time, will be dissociated with the institution in an effort to level the inequality between classes of people who can and cannot marry. So in all your efforts to "protect" marriage and "defend" marriage - all you've really done is destroy want you wanted to protect, in the first place.So enjoy the celebration... but it will be brief. I hope I'm wrong... but if Oregon is any example (they had a similar one-liner)... the amendment will pass, probably 51 to 56% in favor.I try to look on the bright side. Divorce is probably the #1, single most destroyer of wealth in this country. So... it's not so much that straight America (not that all gay people are for gay marriage) is trying to "protect marriage" as it is that they are trying to protect gays and lesbians from having to endure the ravages of a nasty divorce case. No marriage, no divorce. Edited May 16, 2008 by BryanS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So... it's not so much that straight America (not that all gay people are for gay marriage) is trying to "protect marriage" as it is that they are trying to protect gays and lesbians from having to endure the ravages of a nasty divorce case. No marriage, no divorce.Absolutely right on that point. Who WANTS to get married?!?Seems like an anachronism that needs to just die. And for gays to want to emulate the worst behavior of straights is mindboggling. I've heard figures as high as 50%-70% of marriages end in divorce.Again, who wants that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Again, who wants that?Losers like me, I guess. I want to marry my girlfriend. If she was my boyfriend, I think I'd still want to marry her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Losers like me, I guess. I want to marry my girlfriend. If she was my boyfriend, I think I'd still want to marry her.I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?yep. And it irritates us straight unmarried couples to no end.The only reason I see that me and the cap'n would get married was if one us no longer had access to benefits, or when we're much older, for the social security bennies. Domestic partner bennies should extend to straight couples as well-- But of the increasing number of companies that provide D.P. bennies, they are for same sex couples only--my own employer is one of these. Makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 they are for same sex couples only--my own employer is one of these. Makes no sense.That is odd - where I work, this is what I found - mentions nothing about same sex, though:Q: What is the definition of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnote Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) I think I'd like my partner and I to have benefits (like health insurance, survivorship rights, etc.) but is 'marriage' the only way to obtain that ... even for straight people?Many companys already allow benefits for "life partners"..Can someone name me one good reason to waste time and effort arguing about gay marriage??? Why they hell should we not allow them to get married???? People need to wake up and realize as has been stated in this thread that there is no "sacred union" to protect. Divorce makes marriage a joke in this country as it is. (Not that I think a gay marriage is any kind of attack on the institution, I think it will make it stronger)Gay couples are allowed to adopt and raise children (as they should be), that is about one thousand times more responsability than getting married. The fact that we have people in this country that still want to create gaps in the equality of rights of US citizens makes me want to puke. How does a gay couple getting a marriage license have an impact on anyone??? It is just ignorant people who are soooo damn scared of "other"...Edit::Sev, my two previous employers share a very similar set of attributes that define life or dometic partner... Edited May 16, 2008 by cnote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 This should be voted on. Judges have too much power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) That is odd - where I work, this is what I found - mentions nothing about same sex, though:Q: What is the definition of "domestic partner" for benefits? A: Domestic Partner must satisfy the following criteria: * Have an intimate, committed relationship of mutual caring, and have agreed to be responsible for each other's welfare.* Have lived together in such a relationship for a period of not less than one year at the same residence address.* Are jointly responsible for debts to third parties.* Are both at least 18 years of age.* Neither partner is legally married* Are not related by blood or adoption.* Neither partner has another partner who meets this definition, and both partners intend to remain in this relationship indefinitely. Yea, after I accepted the offer and read the policy more closely, they specifically define domestic partners as same sex. Yours is much more specific in its definition --especially the requirement of being jointly responsible for third party debts. That is troublesome to me. That's precisely one of the reasons we don't get married! Edited May 16, 2008 by crunchtastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) This should be voted on. Judges have too much power.In the supreme courts that's precisley the intent--to check 'too much power' and keep legislatures from passing unconstitutional laws. Passing a vote doesn't make it constitutional. And I certainly don't trust congressmen or state leges to uphold the bill of rights, much less to be the arbitars of constitutionality. (which brings up the issue of electing judges, but I digress). If we put constitutional issues to a vote (show those activist judges a thing or two!!) we'd probably still have Jim Crow. Think about it. I'm not saying it's perfect, but consider the alternative. Edited May 16, 2008 by crunchtastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 This should be voted on. Judges have too much power.Huh? This was voted on. The court struck down the proposition. Are you saying that the judiciary shouldn't be able to rule on the constitutionality of anything that's been voted on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 It's apparent to me that people only call judges activist judges when it's a decision they don't agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.