Federal Judge Rules Portion of DOMA (gay marriage ban statute) Unconstitutional

[Larry]

In many peoples eyes that is not far enough and there is no compromise.

I suspect that you're not reading his post, either.

He's objecting to your proposal, because he thinks you're proposing "separate but equal". (At least, if I'm reading him correctly.)

You're using the same phrase as the "separate but equal" folks. And people are responding to you as though you were one of the "separate but equal" folks. (By pointing out that anything that is "separate" is, by definition, unequal.)

(No doubt part of this is also due to the dead-horse-ish-ness of this issue. It's been beaten so many times that people have developed reflex responses whenever they hear a buzz word.)

[NewCliche21]

Which part of "he's proposing civil unions for everybody" don't you get?

(At least, that's the way I read his proposal, now that he's amplified.)

See, twa, this is what I mean. "Civil Unions" has been the term that the "separate but claim it's equal, even when it isn't" crowd has been pushing for years,

to apply to gay marriages only

.

You're making a different proposal, but using the same terminology which people are applying to a different position.

If white kids get a "Birth Certificate", but black kids get a "Certificate of Live Birth", then that's "separate but equal".

If everybody gets a "Certificate of Live Birth", then it is, by definition, equal.

Currently, marriage is exclusive to heterosexuals (for the most part). It is denied to homosexuals. If we change "marriage" to "civil unions", then marriage is still denied to them and it means that the battle is lost. The title means a lot to a lot of people.

[NewCliche21]

I suspect that you're not reading his post, either.

He's objecting to your proposal, because he thinks you're proposing "separate but equal". (At least, if I'm reading him correctly.)

You're using the same phrase as the "separate but equal" folks. And people are responding to you as though you were one of the "separate but equal" folks. (By pointing out that anything that is "separate" is, by definition, unequal.)

(No doubt part of this is also due to the dead-horse-ish-ness of this issue. It's been beaten so many times that people have developed reflex responses whenever they hear a buzz word.)

My new buzz word.

I'm not saying that he's doing separate but equal; I'm saying that he's doing something else entirely different as opposed to (and, depending on interpretation, intentionally instead of) giving everyone the equality of what it is today.

The title matters as that's what they fought for.

[twa]

The title matters as that's what they fought for.

See what I mean Larry?

it's enough to drive ya to drinking

[NewCliche21]

See what I mean Larry?

it's enough to drive ya to drinking

You must've had a tough time in your 400-level classes if concepts that are foreign to you make you want to drink.

I don't know if you've ever fought for something in your life, but if you did, then you would understand. A replacement is not what you fought for; your goal is for what you fought.

What if you're the Eagles, you somehow put it together in an effort to win the Super Bowl . . . but there isn't one. Now it's the Ultra Mega Plate. You'll never, ever have won the Super Bowl. There's something to that. It's hard to define, but if you've fought for something, then you'd understand.

[twa]

You must've had a tough time in your 400-level classes if concepts that are foreign to you make you want to drink.

I don't know if you've ever fought for something in your life, but if you did, then you would understand. A replacement is not what you fought for; your goal is for what you fought.

the wind blowing makes me want a drink.

I have understood your posts all along(in fact you corroborated my earlier one),Larry seems to be unwilling to believe that equality under the law ain't quite good enough for many.

enjoy tilting at windmills

[NewCliche21]

the wind blowing makes me want a drink.

I have understood your posts all along(in fact you corroborated my earlier one),Larry seems to be unwilling to believe that equality under the law ain't quite good enough for many.

enjoy tilting at windmills

Unfortunately for you, Larry's opinion isn't the end-all be-all.

Again, just because you don't get it doesn't make it wrong.

[twa]

Unfortunately for you, Larry's opinion isn't the end-all be-all.

Again, just because you don't get it doesn't make it wrong.

Get that they will not be satisfied with civil unions for all,but only marriage as it is known now, expanded to include SS couples?

dang man I've been saying that for a looong time,I don't think Larry ever believed it.....believe me I know muleheadedness very well

[NewCliche21]

Get that they will not be satisfied with civil unions for all,but only marriage as it is known now, expanded to include SS couples?

dang man I've been saying that for a looong time,I don't think Larry ever believed it.....believe me I know muleheadedness very well

I think that we're going to be running in circles with this.

[81artmonk]

Oooh, ooooh! I know! God!!!

Very good, you got it right. It also says so in our constitution. Therefore, bringing religion into this moral issue isn't so far fetched.

[Larry]

Very good, you got it right. It also says so in our constitution.

No, it doesn't.

(Yeah, I'm being picky. It just ticks me. The Constitution, if printed, is like three pages long. (I think the Amendments add another three or so.) The Declaration is only one. And yet people who don't know what's in them, like to attempt to use them as debating weapons.)

[Larry]

You must've had a tough time in your 400-level classes if concepts that are foreign to you make you want to drink.

I don't know if you've ever fought for something in your life, but if you did, then you would understand. A replacement is not what you fought for; your goal is for what you fought.

What if you're the Eagles, you somehow put it together in an effort to win the Super Bowl . . . but there isn't one. Now it's the Ultra Mega Plate. You'll never, ever have won the Super Bowl. There's something to that. It's hard to define, but if you've fought for something, then you'd understand.

While I can understand why some people might believe that what's going on is "well, if marriage can't be reserved for straights only, then nobody will have it", . . .

(And I'll even admit that whenever I see someone who's opposing equal rights for gays, my automatic assumption is to assume that whatever they're proposing has a "gotcha" in it.)

I also have to observe that if you're going to de-couple the concepts of "church wedding" and "courthouse wedding", (And I do believe that that's what's needed. That's the only way this problem is gonna get solved.), if you are "separating church and state", so to speak, . . .

then it makes sense for the two, now-separate, things to have two names. And I don't see that it makes a lot of difference as to which of the two things changes it's names.

[PokerPacker]

Currently, marriage is exclusive to heterosexuals (for the most part). It is denied to homosexuals. If we change "marriage" to "civil unions", then marriage is still denied to them and it means that the battle is lost. The title means a lot to a lot of people.

Marriage is only denied to them by the religions/priests that deny it. I'm sure there's one out there willing to do it and it will have as much meaning as any other marriage.

[NoCalMike]

I have a states vs fed question about marriage. It is just a hypothetical question.

Lets say, a gay couple gets married in a state that allows it. They decide to take a roadtrip for the holidays to a relative's house in a state where gay marriage is not allowed. They get into a car crash in the destination state, one is injured in a car wreck severely.

Now how would that work if they wanted to visit them in a hospital or if they had "decision making to do" how does that work because they are technically in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage.

[81artmonk]

No, it doesn't.

(Yeah, I'm being picky. It just ticks me. The Constitution, if printed, is like three pages long. (I think the Amendments add another three or so.) The Declaration is only one. And yet people who don't know what's in them, like to attempt to use them as debating weapons.)

I stand corrected, you are right, however that still doesn't change my point

[81artmonk]

Again it's not a civil rights issue, never will be and never has been. As much as people would like it to be, no one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that it's NOT a choice.

The best anyone has been able to come up with is "no one would choose this lifestyle" as if that's sound science.

If there were such evidence, it would be ground breaking and all over the news and this arguement wouldn't be taking place.

[twa]

I have a states vs fed question about marriage. It is just a hypothetical question.

Lets say, a gay couple gets married in a state that allows it. They decide to take a roadtrip for the holidays to a relative's house in a state where gay marriage is not allowed. They get into a car crash in the destination state, one is injured in a car wreck severely.

Now how would that work if they wanted to visit them in a hospital or if they had "decision making to do" how does that work because they are technically in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage.

O issued a federal order as far as visitation rights to prevent any barring of SS partners

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html

The new rules will not apply only to gays. They also will affect widows and widowers who have been unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. And they would allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions.

As far as making medical decisions for others in the case of SSM you will likely need to provide proof of the SSM.

A medical directive or POA is a very good idea for ANYONE that wishes a certain person to make life choices...it greatly cuts down the bs from the hospital and other family members.

[NewCliche21]

While I can understand why some people might believe that what's going on is "well, if marriage can't be reserved for straights only, then nobody will have it", . . .

(And I'll even admit that whenever I see someone who's opposing equal rights for gays, my automatic assumption is to assume that whatever they're proposing has a "gotcha" in it.)

I also have to observe that if you're going to de-couple the concepts of "church wedding" and "courthouse wedding", (And I do believe that that's what's needed. That's the only way this problem is gonna get solved.), if you are "separating church and state", so to speak, . . .

then it makes sense for the two, now-separate, things to have two names. And I don't see that it makes a lot of difference as to which of the two things changes it's names.

Well, it may not make a difference to you, but it does to many people that I know within the the LGBTQ community.

Again it's not a civil rights issue, never will be and never has been. As much as people would like it to be, no one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that it's NOT a choice.

The best anyone has been able to come up with is "no one would choose this lifestyle" as if that's sound science.

If there were such evidence, it would be ground breaking and all over the news and this arguement wouldn't be taking place.

:doh:

I mean, now that 81artmonk says it, who has no background in anything related to the subject, then the case is settled. It doesn't matter that trying to prove a negative is impossible (prove to me that little invisible gnomes aren't running around in your head) and that he has nothing to support himself and that he's trying to be the Lorax and speak for the trees.

:doh:

[twa]

Well, it may not make a difference to you, but it does to many people that I know within the the LGBTQ community.

I'm curious, do you think they will get what they truly want even if they get the specific terminology they desire?

It just seems like yet another branch of fanaticism in many I have known and I feel it will do their cause more harm than good.

It is entertaining trying to reason with true believers of any stripe.

[Bang]

Again it's not a civil rights issue, never will be and never has been. As much as people would like it to be, no one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that it's NOT a choice.

The best anyone has been able to come up with is "no one would choose this lifestyle" as if that's sound science.

If there were such evidence, it would be ground breaking and all over the news and this arguement wouldn't be taking place.

Thankfully the future will come, with or without you.

~Bang

[NewCliche21]

I'm curious, do you think they will get what they truly want even if they get the specific terminology they desire?

It just seems like yet another branch of fanaticism in many I have known and I feel it will do their cause more harm than good.

It is entertaining trying to reason with true believers of any stripe.

I think that giving every group of people the same thing, because they all do the same thing, is anything but fanatical. In fact, having something CALLED the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is pretty fanatical.

Denying rights/privileges/entitlements to others based on anything but a criminal offense is un-American. They do, however, do this in fanatic states. Funny how that works out.

[twa]

But using the judges 10th reasoning the states have the right to do so:silly:

Don't care to venture a opinion on the first question above?

[NewCliche21]

But using the judges 10th reasoning the states have the right to do so:silly:

Don't care to venture a opinion on the first question above?

I don't care if the states have the right to do it; it's not the right thing to do. That's the whole point.

And I just missed your question, again. Sorry, ****ing cats woke me up at like 7 and I'm still pissy (I know, shocking for me).

People will be happy when they have nothing left to fight for. Groups will be happy when they don't have to organize protests. People will be happy when they can take rights/privileges/etc. for granted just like you and I do as heterosexual white (I'm taking a shot in the dark here) males.

[Bang]

People will be happy when they have nothing left to fight for. Groups will be happy when they don't have to organize protests. People will be happy when they can take rights/privileges/etc. for granted just like you and I do as heterosexual white (I'm taking a shot in the dark here) males.

Wanna bet?

Man, sometimes I've been an optimist, but never to this extent!

~Bang

[twa]

Wanna bet?

Man, sometimes I've been an optimist, but never to this extent!

~Bang

True dat

There just ain't no pleasing some people,and I am among them.