Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Mar 21, 2014.
If only this judge would ever review a study on man-made global warming with the same rationale...
Be careful what you wish for because I don't think you'd get the results you'd like
What a baby post from you LD. Why does it bother you so much that The Gay might be just as good as Us?
Happy as in gay?
Of course, you and just about everyone else in this thread are missing the point... Few, if any, are against same sex couples being able to enjoy the same benefits as that of married couples. It's their insistence that their union be considered a "marriage" that we disagree. Marriage is a religious term, only to be co-opted by the government when they found that they could make money from the union. This has been pointed out dozens of times here, yet you, and many others, seem to disregard this and insist that anyone who disagreed with you are homophobes.
Some homosexuals are using this as a way to "get back" at the religious minded people. They aren't happy with just being able to enjoy the exact same benefits; they want to force others to accept their lifestyle into the religious realms.
BTW, this case overturned a vote in which 60% of the population of Michigan said they did not want Michigan to recognize same-sex "marriages." Once again. The minority imposing its will on the majority.
I don't consider 'marriage' a religious term. My marriage certainly isn't. Same with many other people.
And I imagine govt got involved because there are legal issues involving marriage and divorce.
Well, the legislation getting challenged in all of these cases sure wouldn't seem to agree with you that "civil unions are all fine and dandy, just don't call it a marriage."
The Michigan amendment at issue:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
The Florida amendment:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
That's frankly an asinine point.
ANY law that is overturned pursuant to judicial review will have passed in a majoritarian political system. So you could make that point about literally any case ever, which means it's not a very good point. Not to mention the whole it's completely irrelevant in an equal rights analysis thing since "but lots of folks really want to treat these people different," believe it or not, is not one of the tests.
Of course YOU don't...
I get it.. You don't (or won't). You took the bait. I will not.
That's fine. I can live with this.
and the fact that YOU do means what?
You do the math.
No answer, huh? Shocked, I tell you, shocked. Time for you bring out "lemmings" and "river dance," I imagine. You know, when you don't have anything else.
Good ol' Dave.
Come in, insist that no one else actually understands what people are arguing ("We don't have a problem with civil unions!"), have someone point out that the facts don't back up his version of the arguments ("Then why did all these states ban civil unions too?"), and then depart with some insult that makes very little sense and having contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion.
It's a hard role, but I guess someone's got to do it.
Can I take this opportunity to point out the inherent lemming-ness of using "lemmings" as the new mot du jour amongst the wingy bunch? Because it happens to be one insult that I never really saw until Rand used it in his CPAC speech a couple of weeks ago, at which point the far right followed their leader, picked it up en masse, and ran it off the cliff.
(And yes, I understand that my analogy exhibits only a slightly greater understanding of what lemmings are known for than Rand's did, but after all, unlike him I did at least tie in the whole cliff thing. )
Hey E-Mitts, that is not a problem, at least, if you think practicing homosexuals are as good as you.
Frankly, if they would just admit that they are as good as me, they would be admitting that they are as unclean as a leper, and need to be cleansed just like I did, and do, frequently.
Instead, they wish to justify their behavior, and call it good.
Right, the minority should always be subjected to the whim of the majority. Although, ironically, I doubt the majority agrees with that. Not the thinkers, anyway. After all, everyone finds themselves in the minority here and there. That's only one of the points that you can't seem to grasp.
How will gay marriage diminish yours or anyone's? And what events led to these marriages being so vulnerable?
I have no reason to believe "practicing homosexuals" are better or worse than you or me. They seem to me to be just like the rest of the world, some good, some bad, most somewhere in between. I don't understand how I have any right to demand an admission of any kind from them or anyone else. Nor deny them the same rights everyone else enjoys. I guess if there were some sort of purity test for all marriages, I could bet on board with forcing them to do the same. But that would probably really suppress the marriage planner industry.
There is no reason for them to "justify their behavior", anymore than it's required for you to do so.
Or to put it another way, yeah, I generally find gay people just as "good" as myself. Or you.
How does calling tomato a vegetable harm vegetables? It doesn't. Doesn't make it true to say it, though.
What's the plan, Phil? If we push along and the courts quite ironically nullify the legislative gains in various states to legalize it legitimately*, and we get a Roe-esque judicial fiat that does for marriage what Roe did for the dignity and value of human life in the womb for 50 states all at once, we have another permanently balkanizing fracture line in our society.
*yeah, a big national 14th amendment ruling renders all the efforts to get state legislatures to pass it hollow, empty, and dead -- because it was a fair accompli, the sovereignty over the decision in the political process was always an illusion in such a situation. Slavery's de jure end came by constitutional amendment, as did women's suffrage. The Civil Rights Act by statute. But one court deciding a foundational issue to human civilization for 50 states and 300 million people all at once is an epically terrible idea and will pretty much guarantee permanent social schism on the issue as we have with abortion.
BTW, I should've been more articulate than to use "baby" about your post. That was bad form. My apologies.