Prop 8 Oral Arguments

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:21 am

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Apr 4 2013, 03:51 AM) I married my wife, as that's the culturally accepted term for a life partnership, with all that rights and understood things that go with that.
I did this in a government registry office marriage ceremony, which actually is not allowed to have religious overtones.

It is quite common here in the north.

Post by **Raveen** » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:17 am

I got married in a church. Because it's a nice sort of a place to get married (and some semi-christian belief on my better half's part). Was interesting chatting to the vicar about my total absence of faith and his being basically ok with it so long as one of us qualified.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:57 pm

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Apr 3 2013, 08:51 PM) Seems like you and MrC are on the same page-ish

To me, that's a bit of semantics though.

If state marriage was replaced by a civil partnership or something that gave all the tax benefits currently afforded to marriage. many people would just get such a partnership and call it marriage.

I married my wife, as that's the culturally accepted term for a life partnership, with all that rights and understood things that go with that.
I did this in a government registry office marriage ceremony, which actually is not allowed to have religious overtones.

Religion had nothing to do with it. And it would be a marriage to me and my loved ones whatever it is in law.

I really don't see the difference between the two in reality, and I'm unsure why it feels like Churches etc. lay claim to a word when plenty of "Married" people are non-religous.

Actually this is a fairly straight forward legal question. Semantics, nuances, and parsing the details is exactly what the law does on every subject. With that being said, if you want to call the ceremony performed under a church's rules and codes a civil union and the legal joining of two people marriage be my guest. Want to make it the law that marriage=legal side of things and civil union= religious ceremony also be my guest. Frankly most of this debate isn't about the legality but individuals pulling in their morale codes and belief systems on a much wider range of subjects.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time tbs, but just remember it is going to be messy

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:58 pm

Kopperhead wrote:QUOTE (Kopperhead @ Apr 4 2013, 12:22 AM) Eventually it comes down to the most simple and basic instinct: FEAR.

Fear of marauding gay hordes?

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:33 pm

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Apr 6 2013, 11:58 AM) Fear of marauding gay hordes?

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:50 pm

As an actual homosexual, i feel like the war over gay marriage is mostly a proxy-war for the broader social values battles that have been raging since forever. Creationism, intelligent design, anti-sex education, anti-abortion, and anti-homosexuals etc. The arguments over why we cant embrace gay rights has changed over and over, but the people havent.

Also, gay marriage is not the first battle gays have fought. For the majority of this country's history, homosexuality was illegal. We couldnt serve in the military (although i did, not openly), and we still cant donate blood. We had to fight for partner insurance benefits, to get hate crime legislation passed (RIP Mathew Shepard), to be able to adopt children, and to push back against the relentless misinformation and outright lies promulgated against us for years.

The gay rights movement essentially started when the stonewall riots happened, which was a series of riots in the streets over the mass arrests, beatings, and gay club raids by the police. We've made a lot of progress since then, but its going to take another generation to finally put this endless bickering to rest. Just like it did for women's suffrage, interratial marriage, and an endless list of other civil rights issues in the past.

All this other nonsense about state's rights and integrity of the family unit is mostly BS, imo.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:04 pm

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Apr 6 2013, 01:50 PM) All this other nonsense about state's rights and integrity of the family unit is mostly BS, imo.

Which is exactly the mentality of most gays (and woman - the similarities are striking) because they can't ever see past whatever social issue they are immediately concerned with because they are wayyyy too emotional for politics.

Post by **pkk** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:17 pm

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Apr 6 2013, 10:50 PM) and we still cant donate blood.

OMG, the FDA got stuck in the dark ages?

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:55 pm

You can't donate blood when you're openly gay?

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:02 pm

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Apr 6 2013, 05:17 PM) OMG, the FDA got stuck in the dark ages?

Actually it is the same with most countries rather then the exception... including Germany. The policy was put into place in the 1980s by just about every country on the planet and many of the countries that no longer have a policy similar to Germany's like Mexico, England/Wales/Scotland have changed them in just the last few years.

The US reviews the law every year via the FDA and given the recent discussions my guess is there will be a change this year or next to the law. I can find no evidence that Germany is even considering a change to their policy. Probably time to light a candle and jiggy with it pkk my good man. Countries like Finland has reconsidered, repeatedly lifting the ban by declined to do so. I could not find even a token discussion on the intertubez about policy change in Germany. To be fair the US discussion bubbles to the top on my search given my geographic location.