I can now have two wives!
Originally Posted by Oaf
Marriage is not a right, and as such, can be restricted as the gov't/people see fit.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
Last edited by VIBEELEVEN; Mar 19, 2005 at 07:48 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,556
From: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by Oaf
Marriage is not a right, and as such, can be restricted as the gov't/people see fit.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
So then the questions stands if a gay couple got married by a church that accepts them for who and what they are. What do you have against that? That Church/Religion belives differently than you. What gives you the right to stop them? You all are missing Ban's point. If you can get married then they are also protected by the same laws that protect your marriage.
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I suggest you re-read his points.
I think Oaf said it best...
Originally Posted by OAF
Marriage is not a right, and as such, can be restricted as the gov't/people see fit.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
So now you're saying a homosexual can't possibly want/comprehend/desire the same "spiritual union" that your marriage represents to you? Please, on exactly what level is a homosexual unable to commit to a partner, love him or her, and keep the same life-long promise as you? More importantly, your argument that it somehow damages the sanctity and meaning of your own marriage is ludicrous. You continually fail to demonstrate how homosexual marriages in any way negatively affect the lives of the rest of us.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by BAN SUVS
You continually fail to demonstrate how homosexual marriages in any way negatively affect the lives of the rest of us.
The gov't is charged with creating, passing, & enforcing laws that help and/or improve society on a large scale.
How will allowing gay marriage improve society?
Dirty Redhead
iTrader: (10)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,204
From: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Originally Posted by Oaf
How will allowing gay marriage improve society?
And I do think that it's my right to get married regardless of what society/gov tells me. That's why you don't have to see if your marriage lic. gets approved.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by ericdared81
By giving a large group of the population equal rights.
And if you factor in the small minority of homosexuals that want to get married, it's even less.
Originally Posted by ericdared81
And I do think that it's my right to get married regardless of what society/gov tells me. That's why you don't have to see if your marriage lic. gets approved.
But, if you receive a State license, the State (and by proxy, the people) can regulate who can marry, as a State 'civil union' is not a right.
Remember, the point of this topic was to point out that a judge usurped his position & nullified the wishes of the people (fascism).
It wasn't started to bash homosexuals, and I think this arguement has stayed rather civil.
Dirty Redhead
iTrader: (10)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,204
From: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Originally Posted by Oaf
It wasn't started to bash homosexuals, and I think this arguement has stayed rather civil.
I know your not trying to bash gays I just have a really hard time understanding how people can use slippery slope logic to deny gay marriages.
Is anyone really that scared about destroying marriage? If so, is that because you think it would taint your marriage?
[rant]The strength of marriage is determined in a case by case basis. I know that marriage has changed in meaning in the last century. The divorce rate is really out of hand because people get married for no reason. But that has no bearing on my marriage or it's value. Neither will gays getting married. My marriage will remained unchaned and untainted as long as we make it that way. So as long as the sanctity of my marriage is secure. Everyone else can do whatever they want. [/rant]
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally Posted by Oaf
How will allowing gay marriage improve society?
What does it have to do with improving society? It's about reversing the wrongful discrimination against homosexuals that has no legal or moral basis. It's just plain wrong for anyone to stand in the way of two gay people getting married, because in now way does it infringe on the rights of others nor bring harm of any kind to society. Oaf, I'm really surprised to see such socialist arguments coming from you.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by BAN SUVS
o_0
What does it have to do with improving society? It's about reversing the wrongful discrimination against homosexuals that has no legal or moral basis. It's just plain wrong for anyone to stand in the way of two gay people getting married, because in now way does it infringe on the rights of others nor bring harm of any kind to society. Oaf, I'm really surprised to see such socialist arguments coming from you.
What does it have to do with improving society? It's about reversing the wrongful discrimination against homosexuals that has no legal or moral basis. It's just plain wrong for anyone to stand in the way of two gay people getting married, because in now way does it infringe on the rights of others nor bring harm of any kind to society. Oaf, I'm really surprised to see such socialist arguments coming from you.
A lot to do with what's right and what's wrong.
Please don't take that statement to mean that I find homosexuality to be wrong, 'cause that's not my stand.
Again, the point of this topic was to point out that a judge usurped his position & nullified the wishes of the people (fascism), claiming that gays had equal protection to the right of marriage.
Again, Marriage is not a right protected by the State.
My beef isn't so much that the gay marriage ban was rejected.
It's that a judge illegally reversed what the people voted for.
Let's look at it in another way.
Driving on public roads is a privilege rather than a right.
This gives the State the responsibility to regulate who can & can not drive.
Now let's assume the law currently reads that gays can not drive.
We the people vote to allow gays to drive, but a militant faction of heterosexuals take their protest to the streets & file a lawsuit to uphold the gay driving ban.
A militant judge rules in their favor, voiding the will of the people.
That act of legislating from the bench is the bigger issue, not what particular issue the judge is ruling on.
It could have been about illegal immigrants, land developement, taxes, etc.
But because it's about gay marriage, people get their panties in a bunch whenever they hear someone else remotely taking the pro-ban stance.
I'd wager a bet that if "gay marriage" was replaced with "assault weapon ban", all my dear Socialist-leaning I-clubbers would be typing in my shoes.
BTW, still want that turbo X-member?
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Okay, discriminatory issues aside, let's talk about the judges action. He overturned a law that was passed, based on other, superceding laws. This is what the US Supreme Court does every day, ruling on the consititutional validity of all matter of things, including laws passed by duly elected representatives. The fact that a popular vote led to an unconstitutional law is not relevant, as that law is no more or less important than one passed by those same voters' representatives in the legislature. The judge did nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral in overturning the law based on his interpretation of the Constitution of California. Further, he did so on a matter that was duly brought before him by due process, he did not "legislate from the bench" by pressing his legal opinion before the matter was a lawsuit in his court. Now, I'm sure somebody or other is going to appeal this decision, and it will end up in the Court of Appeals, and eventually the Supreme Court if some other state's anti-gay marriage legislation doesn't get there first.
Back to the issue of state-protected rights. It's not that gays are guaranteed the right to marry by the government; the state is not guaranteeing the right to either of us to marry either. The issue is that the state does NOT have the authority to DENY marriage to homosexuals based solely on their sexuality. It's discrimination no different than inter-racial marriage is.
And don't worry, with 8 years of conservative administration, there will be a federal judge lifting weapon bans left and right in a few years.
Can the gays get married if you can have your AK and BMG? 
Sounds fair to me. 
and uh, yeah, I'll take it. Bring it to the meet this week if you can, I'll be there.
Back to the issue of state-protected rights. It's not that gays are guaranteed the right to marry by the government; the state is not guaranteeing the right to either of us to marry either. The issue is that the state does NOT have the authority to DENY marriage to homosexuals based solely on their sexuality. It's discrimination no different than inter-racial marriage is.
And don't worry, with 8 years of conservative administration, there will be a federal judge lifting weapon bans left and right in a few years.
Can the gays get married if you can have your AK and BMG? Sounds fair to me. and uh, yeah, I'll take it. Bring it to the meet this week if you can, I'll be there.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by BAN SUVS
Can the gays get married if you can have your AK and BMG? Sounds fair to me.
Sounds fair to me. 
Originally Posted by BAN SUVS
and uh, yeah, I'll take it. Bring it to the meet this week if you can, I'll be there.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Originally Posted by Oaf
Marriage is not a right, and as such, can be restricted as the gov't/people see fit.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
That being said, I cannot stand by and let gays be denied benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy; insurance from spouse's employer, visitation priveledges while hospitalized, etc.
A good compromise would be to allow these benefits/priveledges to be extended to a gay employee's SO.
IMHO, the only thing a state or government should recognize is a civil union between a consenting adult couple (that's for paul and his multiple wives + goat theory). whether it's called a marriage or not is between the couple and their religion. (disturbingly, my quite liberal co-worker agrees with me on this, we never agree on politics.)
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Yeah, good point Russ. If you refuse to allow gays to be married, but grant them certain rights and priveleges like "significant other" health care and such, wouldn't that mean that ANY two people could simply declare themselves to be "life partners" or whatever term is used, and completely nullify all of the legal and social obligations and requirements of actually getting married?