Could it be the start of an avalanche? The Vermont legislature has overridden a governor's veto to sign into a law a bill recognizing gay marriage. Civil rights expanding after so many years of repression? There are conservatives turning purple and screaming all over the country right now, I expect.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The Connecticut House of Representatives passed a bill allowing civil unions for gay couples on an 85-63 vote and Governor Rell signed the bill less than an hour after it was passed. The final version contains language that says that "marriage" is still defined as the union of a man and a woman,…
California's legislature became the first in the nation yesterday to pass a bill allowing gays to get married. Not just civil unions, but actual marriage. Unfortunately, it looks like Ahnold is going to veto the bill. The only thing that could prevent that veto from lowering my opinion of him is…
Barbara Forrest is sending this message out everywhere — they need concerted public action to forestall a dreadful legislative disaster that is looming large in the state of Louisiana. You can help!
We in the LA Coalition for Science have reached the point at which the only possible measure we have…
The Republican dominated Minnesota Legislature got almost nothing done over the last two years that they were in power. But they did manage to put two boneheaded constitutional amendments on the ballot for last November, one to restrict voting rights in a way that Republicans would have a better…
I was just going to interject this on some other thread: This just in (11 minutes ago): "Vermont legalizes gay marriage" by a vote of the legislature!
Cool! Some day we will look back at the time when people were discriminated against for their sexuality and we'll be amazed that anyone ever felt that way - kind of like what has happened with the civil rights movement.
Go Vermont!
Wow, was that two states to legalize marriage equality with less than a week between the two? Forty-someodd to go.
Cue the fundy lawsuits to overturn this in 5...4...3...
In Iowa... Wackaloon heads are exploding.
No same-sex marriage debate this year
The Senate's top Democrat said Monday he won't let the same-sex marriage issue be debated this session, a position the top GOP leader decried as obstructionist.
"I have no intention of taking it up," said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs. "I'm not going to put discrimination in the state Constitution. It's just a horrible idea."
Gronstal said the Iowa Supreme Court ruled last week that a state law defining marriage as only between one man and one woman violated equal protection guarantees for all people. To follow that with a resolution to amend the Constitution with a one-man, one-woman marriage amendment would be adding an "except" to that equal protection clause.
"I think that's unacceptable," said Gronstal, who added that he was "not inclined" to move the constitutional amendment legislation forward during the 2010 session either.
http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090407/NEWS/7…
This is a Good Thing. Also gay weddings start on 1 May in Sweden, which presumably annoyed a small number of conservative Lutherans in small villages.
What do you expect! The state is shaped like a triangle and it's usually pink on most maps.
Just joking. This is good as it shows that a legislature can do this. Now, only 46 states left.
Fundy lawsuits will be for entertainment purposes only.
Has the California challenge to Prop 8 got anywhere yet? was there a decision?
Unfortunately my state will problably be the last one. I live in Texas right now but intend to get out as soon as I get out of college.
PZ. I would agree that this is long overdue and with luck it shall overcome the country in a wave of social justice the likes not seen since the 60's. I would suggest it is not conservatives in a frenzy just religious nuts. I identify as liberal, however I have many conservative friends who feel gay marriage should be allowed seeing as the government should not be in the habit of telling its populace who it can and can not marry, or sleep with, or a number of other things. And for the record I live in the buckle of the bible belt Tennessee, if ERV thinks the folks in Oklahoma are a bit nuts she should come here.
So this is actually marriage and not one of those civil union deals? If so, good job Vermont!
All right! I've been thinking that marriage equality will come for sure SOMEDAY, nationwide, but maybe that day is closer than I think.
In the meantime, I'm still working on overturning the hateful Prop 8 here in "liberal" California.
I'm not really wild about this piece-meal approach, even though I do utterly and unreservedly advocate the cause of marriage equality for all couples, and applaud the States wherein this is being decided for the plaintiffs...
I'd really much rather there be a SCOTUS decision affirming the right of all to marry under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and which prohibits prohibitive legislation on the basis of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, that will probably have to await the bodily assumption into heaven of the Opus Deists who currently occupy 4 (or 5, depending on whether Kennedy feels the hand of the Holy Ghost that day) of the nine seats.
I'm quoting Wowbagger from the Iowa marriage thread because of pure untainted awesomeness. I want this carved on stone for my front lawn-
"Suck it, Rob. The salt tears of your pain and rage and humiliation are delicious to me and forward-thinking folks everywhere."
*wipes away tear*
Not so fast. the Vermont House still has to override the veto. they need 100 votes which is hard knowing that only 95 voted for the bill in the first place. but the Senate override is a great begining. Keeping my Monkey fingers crossed
Woot! It's a bad week to be a bigot.
It's a done deal.
MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.
Eugenicists and population reduction and control freaks strategized the promotion of queer sex as a means of reducing the world population in 1969. They started teh "gay rights movement" to promote this avenue and continue today.
Do not fall for it. You will die and go to hell for following their agenda.
Consider yourself warned.
1969, how ironic.
#2 Heather
"Some day we will look back at the time when people were discriminated against for their sexuality and we'll be amazed that anyone ever felt that way"
I've been amazed like that ever since I learned that there were homophobes, I'm sure. I can't remember quite when that was, but I suspect it was then...
Hah-hah! Not even a court order this time, but a legislative shockwave.
#18- Yeah, because nobody ever had gay sex bacause, y'know, they wanted to.
Fuck off.
If anyone is interested, Nate Silver has his predictions up about how long it will take every state to recognize the rights of gay people.
Do not fall for it. You will die and go to hell for following their agenda.
prima facie evidence of the religious nature of the objections.
And as it stands now, there's probably a couple of billion too many people crawling around looking for places to breed as it is.
I recommend either 1) vasectomy (if your straight) or 2) teh ghey as prophylactics agains more unnecessary births...
present-
I looked at your post and your website. Are you are intentionally lying and defaming or just another ignorant fool who cheerfully repeats the lies and defamations that others tell him to repeat?
Either way, you are a cause of evil in the world.
THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
I don't understand how it violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. If states were only allowing Catholics to marry, or forbidding Jews, etc. but none do that.
@18--you're an idiot. Consider yourself informed.
#18 = Poe. Notice the "teh"? Nice one though.
From the article:
Happy Monkey!
And in the middle of Holy Week, too. Some heads are asplodin'...
I was going to make the usual congratulatory statement to Vermont when I caught a whiff @19's post. You can smell the fresh, hot insanity. If you like a total blend of Mormon batshit crazy mixed with tinfoil hat Illuminati and a soupçon of eugenics hysteria, this is the site for you! Oh, and you GO Vermont!
The flood gates have opened!
Sniff, Sniff. Ah, the smell of rationality in the air. Great job Vermont.
Hey "present", clicked your name, 0.3 timecubes.
Wonderful news.
Sorry 19, I meant 18. I was still reeling from my visit to Mormon Eugenics World.
Donald Wildmon's group of sociopaths is sufficiently riled up about the day of silence also.
Did I mention I've always been friendly with our new gay overlords? Just need to get me a new Iowa T-shirt to go with my OBAMA08 car tag...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timtimes/3000859890/
Enjoy.
As a hitman for the gay mafia, I must whoop with joy at this news.
I just think it's a fantastic sign that people like us speaking up about it (obviously the celebrities like PZ and such are more influential), is having an impact.
Interesting times... makes me wonder if I'll eventually be telling my grandkids stories about this sort of thing.
I'm really quite surprised by this result. After the initial bill got 95 votes, I didn't expect the 100-vote override to take place. FUCKIN-A!
And check out this from the Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo
Guess what, "present." We will bury you.
Oh, so that's why I suddenly felt my love for my wife disappear, to be replaced with an insatiable urge to sodomize my dog. Gay marriage is destroying my God-Fearing Heterosexual Marriage!
Be warned America! If you continue down the path of Sodom, then it shall be for you as it was for that city, and as it is for your neighbour Canada! From out of heaven, on your heads shall fall...(looks out window)...SNOW! In April!!
Of course that's also pretty normal for Vermont, too, isn't it?
Never mind, carry on as you were....
As the bumperstickers used to say
I LoVermont
Doing this not only by a vote of the legislature, but with an override of a Rethuglican veto is so the coolest way to get this done! Huzzah, Vermont; makes me proud to be a New Englander. IIRC that's MA, CT, and VT with marriage; NH with civil unions; and I don't know the status of ME or RI: We're the gay-marryingest region in the nation! (Suck it, Pacific Coast! ;^) )
For the beer drinkers here, I urge you to toast this occasion with one of the many fine craft brews from VT. For my part, I have a bottle of Long Trail Brewmaster's Series Coffee Stout waiting in my fridge.
yay vermont! (let's hope NY gets there soon)
Happy Monkey indeed. It does appear that the tide is slowly turning on your side of the pond. Keep it up.
I'm hoping that this is a trend that justifies the Massachusettes model.
When gay marriage was legalized there, opponents were loud and threatening to storm the legislature with pitchforks and Bibles. But as time went on, and the world as we know it didn't end, and heterosexual couples went on marrying and divorcing each other in the same numbers as they had before homosexual marriage was legalized, the heterosexual population of Massachusetts came to understand that gay marriage, to them, had no negative impact whatsoever - the only change that occurred was a positive one, in that homosexuals are one step closer to full societal acceptance (many, many more to go, but still - a step forward is better than no movement at all).
Homosexuality is slowly becoming more accepted in the American mainstream; certainly the younger generation doesn't share the discriminatory view of their elders. I like to think that within 20 years we will look back upon the "Gay Marriage Wars" and shake our heads at the fools who stood against positive social change.
Of course, that doesn't mean people should stop agitating and forcing people to confront their own bigotry... catalysts are still required for favorable reactions to occur.
I'm thrilled!
Autumn (@42) for the win!! ;^)
Legalized discrimination in Vermont: PWND.
Thanks for the good news. with all the good news this week the only way to top it is for an archeologist to find ole JC's bones in Palestine and put the whole charade to rest
Mom, stop posting on the internet.
(I'm the product of an Italian Catholic upbringing. I'm used to hearing this shit every day. Get a new act, present.)
Oh, so that's why it's snowing for three days straight in April. And here I thought it was one of PZ's leftover blizzards.
Damn those activist legislators, and their reprehensible law-passing behaviors. Don't they know they're supposed to defend The Family™ by sitting around and doing nothing?
I'm in New York and we get snow and no same-sex marriage*. I feel cheated, somehow.
* Yeah, I know Gov. Patterson said that New York will honor other states'/countries marriages, but it's not the same.
Those poor gays in Vermont. Marriage is hard. Just ask my ex-wives.
From the Chicago Tribune comment section, commenter "Family Values writes:
Woo-hoo! Go, Vermont!
Present, given the history of the Mormon Church and its tendency to reinterpret its invented scripture to align with US laws and mainstream society (end of polygamy, ordaining of blacks), your Elders will claim a revelation from God that homosexual marriage is A-OK just as soon as it's politically expedient to do so, and you and your little cultists will begin revisionist pirouetting so fast you'll make ballerinas and dervishes jealous, gay and straight alike.
Your cult is so transparently devoid of substance it's a laughingstock even among Unitarian Universalists, so why don't you take the prescriptions of your cult of convenience and shove 'em where Moroni's golden tablets don't shine?
Autumn (@42)
I'd say the dog is taking the brunt of it. Don't complain.
What's up now California? Watching Vermont and Iowa (IOWA!) progress right by you must feel pretty shameful. Next time tell the Mormons to stay out of your vote.
This is how change works; it had to come slowly. That's one of the good things about having several layers of government. Once a large enough number of states takes away legalized discrimination, it will be easier for the federal government to follow.
Right. Because homosexuality didn't exist before 1969; it's just a conspiracy. You're a fool. No, scratch that. You're a delusional paranoiac, and should seek help ASAP.
"I'm not going to put discrimination in the state Constitution. It's just a horrible idea."
ORLY? So, when are they going to stop treating unmarried differently from married? WTF about giving married people tax breaks for inheritance, denying partner medical coverage for unmarried, etc., is not discrimination?
If the gays want mothers-in-law and marriages, more power to 'em. But the discrimination inherent in marriage cuts much broader than just across same-sex.
I know the bible thumpers see gay marriage as a "threat to marriage" but they don't know what they're talking about. Gays want to get married. I want to eliminate all subsidies legal and financial benefits attached to marriage. I'm the real threat to marriage. :D
Again? We might as well legalize marriages between humans and their pets. eventually that's what it will come down to. Those will sure be funny looking kids.
This world is sick, twisted,demented perverted and stupid.
Eugenicists and population reduction and control freaks strategized the promotion of queer sex as a means of reducing the world population in 1969.
Be glad. I was on the committee that made that decision, and I was the one pushing for global thermonuclear war. When I see idiots like you, I really wish I'd had the swing-vote.
Our village idiot reappeared. Still an unthinking idiot.
#66 derender
I agree, there are many things wrong with this world. That's why I'm glad to see this step in the right direction in Vermont.
And when you die it will be less so.
"This world is sick, twisted,demented perverted and stupid."
And you and your made up religions have made it this way. Get the fuck out of the way while we attempt to fix it.
Vermont can try all they like, but they'll never be as cool as Iowa :-) This has been a pretty good week for civil rights, huh?
A friend of mine did a little research and found some interesting parallels between the reaction to same-sex marriage in Iowa and the striking of anti-miscegenation laws from 40 years ago.
So, leave it already, you hateful piece of shit. You won't be missed by many.
Somewhere, Ben Stein is still crying. I'd like to think of this as another "piss off" from the Granite State.
More importantly, huzzah for marriage equality!
This is frick'n historic and the zombies in my office merely acknowledge it with a shrug.
Any ideas on which state will be number five?
I'm so damned proud to be a Vermonter today - hell, I'm proud to be an American lately (not something I thought I'd say for a long time). When I came out at age 12, the cultural milieu was very different. Homophobia was almost *completely* socially acceptable. I was the only out gay kid in my high school, and the principal refused to do anything about the thugs who beat me up. "That's the price you pay for being different," were her exact words.
I became a gay rights activist in my teens, speaking at state teachers' conferences on the plight of LGBT youth. I worked with AIDS organizations on safe-sex outreach. . all the usual early 90s jobs for queer activists. I could *never* have imagined that, within my lifetime, the gay marriage issue would get this far. It just didn't occur to most of us as a possibility.
At 34, I feel confident predicting the issue will be settled nationally, within the next 10 years. The train is unstoppable, and even our constitutionally illiterate Supreme Court will have to recognize the unconstitutionality of DOMA.
MAJeff - I suspect you and I are within 5 or 6 years of the same age. I'd really like your perspective on this. Years ago, would you have predicted we are where we are today?
I'm not ashamed to say I'm reveling in a pit of schadenfraude watching the bigots melt down. They deserve every bit of their own misery for the decades of degradation and indignity they've inflicted on LGBT people (with ugly relish). They're watching their privileged place in history slip away for good, and it's sweeeeeeeet to behold. I can only hope that, in years to come, some of them look back with deep shame at having argued for a legal right to deprive other people of basic liberties to satisfy their own ugly prejudices.
Actually, New Hampshire is the Granite State. Sorry about that.
Vermont is The Green Mountain State.
Just in case you're not joking (It's hard to tell with religious folks. They may be joking, or they may just be stupid) here's the difference:
One set of citizens, heterosexuals, enjoy the protection of community property rights, insurance benefits, and child support protections. A subset of citizens, homosexuals, are denied those same rights. That is the definition of "bigotry".
However, nobody has the legal right to commit beastiality. Nobody has the right to sexually abuse a child. So the argument that this will lead to beastiality and pedophilia is bogus because there is no set of citizens that currently has those rights while another set of citizens are denied those rights. We are all denied the right to do sexual harm to animals and children.
Yes, there are many who fit that description. And the majority of them are religious.
strange gods (@57):
That's a funny comment... but based on my experiences with newspaper website comment threads, I'm guessing for every 1 reader who catches the satire, there'll be 99 saying "right on; you tell 'em!" [sigh]
I wonder if there isn't some sort of corollary to Poe's Law that says there's no satire of wingnuttery broad or obvious enough that some wingnut won't take it seriously.
deranged:
"Again?" is right. Again with the mindlessly stupid slipperly-slope argument. I supposed you also oppose interfaith and interracial marriage. After all, look at what it's led to.
This world's not fair! I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue!
(Stomps up the stairs and slams the door. Dives onto the bed, kicking the mattress in frustration. Finally picks up the gun and fondles it. The gun understands.)
Congratz on the win JoshS.
D'Oh!!
That is Poe's Law, of course. We use the term "Poe" to mean "prankster" around here so regularly that I got all twisted up in mah' brain. [blush]
GregB writes:
One set of citizens, heterosexuals, enjoy the protection of community property rights, insurance benefits, and child support protections. A subset of citizens, homosexuals, are denied those same rights. That is the definition of "bigotry".
One set of citizens, married couples, enjoy the protection of community property rights, insurance benefits, and child support protections. A different set of citizens, unmarried individuals, are denied those same rights. That is the definition of "bigotry."
#66 derender
*headdesk*
How many times am I going to have to do that today? My poor little desk is starting to cave in.
Wait.... WHAT???
JC
(obligatory smilie thing included)
JoshS:
The real victims here are Fred Phelps and his clan. Now they have to protest two entire extra states! Think of the travel expenses!
Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend dives for yet more turd pearls in Freepland.
I love the incoherence of the last quote and the fixation on the arse. But the part I loved most was the woman wearing a strap-on pretending to be a woman. Classic!
The amazing thing is, that in less than a week, we’ve doubled the number of states with full marriage equality.
4 down, 46 to go …
NH, NJ, and NY aren’t too far behind by the looks of things (NY already recognises ssm’s done in other states and nations anyway).
Personally, I think both the legislature and the courts are appropriate places to gain civil rights, though honestly, I feel more comfortable with the latter, as the idea of ANYONE, representative or citizen referendum, voting on my rights just rubs me the wrong way.
But regardless, I wanted to say thanks PZ, for your unwavering support of equality. It’s definitely been noticed.
"CA, is lost so two million conservatives move out to CO,NM,AZ and it changes the game and political landscape not to mention who would now pay for their liberal agenda's"
Heh. What those fools don't realize, is that I and many of my librul socialist homo comrades moved to AZ from CA for the housing opportunities (pre-boom)!!!
CHECKMATE BITCHEZ!
"Again? We might as well legalize marriages between humans and their pets. eventually that's what it will come down to. Those will sure be funny looking kids."
Obviously derender has no idea about the concept of "consent".
Keep him away from your kids folks.
As soon as pets have the mental capacity to consent, then we should legalize it. Until then, it should remain illegal as marrying and having sex with someone who can't consent is called rape.
In another wild development, the DC city council voted unanimously (12-0) to recognize gay marriages performed in other states... Am I in bizzaro-land or what?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR20090…
Marcus Ranum - I'm single too. I'm gay. I'm an old man. I never had the choice.
So shut the fuck up.
Oh my! It seems that Vermont business owners have fallen under the influence of socialist/homosexual agenda. They wrote a letter in support of the veto over ride.
Three cheers for Vermont. Now everybody watch for the other shoe. Damned thing always gets dropped just as things are finally going right.
AdamK writes:
Marcus Ranum - I'm single too. I'm gay. I'm an old man. I never had the choice.
I'm sorry for you. What was done to you sucks. It was unfair. I despise religion and the horrible things it teaches its victims about homosexuality. Do you want my pity? You've got it - since you seem to be asking for it. I support equal rights for all humans.
None of that changes one whit of the truth of my observation. Treating "marriage" preferentially is unfair and - if you get over your own pain and think about it for 2 seconds - it's absolutely obvious.
So shut the fuck up.
Selfish, whining, crip.
Not related to marriage equality, but since we're cheering good news, more ballots have been counted in MN, and Al Franken now leads by more than 300 votes... which is, as MN Public Radio points out, about three times as many votes as Coleman's remaining issues could possibly swing.
So Franken has clearly won.
Of course, that means Coleman will definitely appeal. I'm so glad those Republicans aren't sore losers like the Democrats, aren't you?
On Pam Spaulding:
"shame that VT was once the most conservative state in the union but it comes a time when those few conservatives left have to say , time to move out and move on "
I can't wait until they take that attitude the rest of the way and leave the US.
[philosophy pedant]
Oh, and arguments can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but they can't be "true" or false.
[/philosophy pedant]
If you are single how the hell do community property rights apply to you at all? As for insurance benefits, what benefits? a Single person can name anyone they want as a beneficiary of their insurance. If you mean different insurance rates for married vs unmarried, I think that is the insurance company and their actuarial tables, not state law.
"Civil rights expanding after so many years of repression?"
Actually civil rights has been slowly marching forward for gays for decades now, with some setbacks, but always marching forward, slowly, relentlessly. It happened in Massachusetts and Connecticut during the Bush years after all, don't discount those states.
"shame that VT was once the most conservative state in the union "but it comes a time when those few conservatives left have to say , time to move out and move on "
Then get the fuck out and be done with it. Let the rest of us continue working toward forming a more perfect union, and toward guaranteeing the promise of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and securing the unalienable rights with which we are all endowed.
And stop cluttering up my quaint New England state with ugly whackaloon bumper stickers. We're houseproud around these parts.
Posted by: derender
Fixed it for ya.
By the way, if you don't like this world, you can leave.
"None of that changes one whit of the truth of my observation. Treating "marriage" preferentially is unfair and - if you get over your own pain and think about it for 2 seconds - it's absolutely obvious."
There are a lot of things about life that's unfair. The blind don't get to drive, and the disabled can't use stairs. Should we abolish driving and stairs so that the blind and disabled don't have to live with the discrimination any longer?
Wait, wait the fourth state? As a Californian, I'm so jealous.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/dc-recognizes-gay-marri…
D.C. recognizes gay marriages performed in other states, works towards allowing them to be performed in D.C. itself.
"One set of citizens, married couples, enjoy the protection of community property rights, insurance benefits, and child support protections. A different set of citizens, unmarried individuals, are denied those same rights. That is the definition of "bigotry."
But there's noting denying unmarried couples (barring homosexuality... well until recently! YAY!) to marry and gain those benefits. How exactly is that bigotry? Also there's a thing called "common law marriages" where if a couple is living together for a certain amount of time, then they get all those advantages.
So really, what's your complaint again?
Justin, #16: The blind don't get to drive, and the disabled can't use stairs.
Huh. First, gay marriage is the same as child rape and bestiality. Now it's the same as blind people driving cars and disabled people using stairs. Some people have an, er, "interesting" way of looking at the world.
Bavarian Illuminatus, your name links to Marcus Ranum's website. I'm confused: is there some sockpuppetry going on here, or a copy and paste error, or something else?
(Marcus is a long-time commenter, but I believe the BI is relatively new.)
Re 110:
Chiroptera, try reading for comprehension. The part about the blind etc was a response to Marcus complaining about married rights being denied to single people.
Iowa corn pancakes with Vermont maple syrup!
I ran across precisely that in the Missouri capitol building once. Nobody was not allowed to climb upstairs to the gallery, as there was no lift for the handicapped. I happened to be carrying a walking stick that day, and was constantly shown to the elevators, and was told the entire tour could wait for me.
"Huh. First, gay marriage is the same as child rape and bestiality. Now it's the same as blind people driving cars and disabled people using stairs. Some people have an, er, "interesting" way of looking at the world."
You misunderstand me. I'm all for SSM, I'm just responding to someone who thinks that all marriage should be abolished, which I find very silly.
Brownian, I took BI's post as a joke poking fun at the crazies conspiracy theories.
I didn't follow his link so I am now assuming it was Marcus doing the fun poking.
"I ran across precisely that in the Missouri capitol building once. Nobody was not allowed to climb upstairs to the gallery, as there was no lift for the handicapped. I happened to be carrying a walking stick that day, and was constantly shown to the elevators, and was told the entire tour could wait for me."
Well, that's... very considerate of them! :)
A freepers head explodes below. I suspect (and hope) that it is a poe, but I fear otherwise. If it was one of you guys, bravo lol.
D'uh. Now I get the joke, Marcus. Thanks for drawing the diagram, Rev.
New readers curious about my puzzlement will do well to remember I haven't got much of a sense of humour.
For those who are talking to people saying that this is the first time same-sex marriages have ever been accepted in a society, and/or saying that such a thing is against Christianity, here's a vastly interesting article (and a good starting place for further research) by Valerie Abrahamsen: Burials in Greek Macedonia: Possible Evidence for Same-Sex Committed Relationships in Early Christianity
http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/articles/Samesex.htm
and you're Canadian
/ducks
Woohoo! Part of me suspect that some (small) part of this was driven by New Englander's (esp northern NE's) well known emphasis on the rights of the individual. They're not much on "big government", so, based on that, my guess for the next state to go will be ... Montana! (It's the sheep.)
Now, I'm just hoping that WA will move its lazy, bipolar ass and get going. I want my neighbors to have rights!
Hey! Canadians rock! I should know, I'm one of them!
Marcus Ranum @98:
>> Treating "marriage" preferentially is unfair <<
How so? If you want the government to acknowledge your partnership, it seems logical that you should have to register said partnership with the government. Your complaints, to me, seem about as logical as complaining that people without driver's licenses are discriminated against, since they are not allowed to drive.
D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages
By Nikita Stewart and Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; 1:57 PM
The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions.
Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation's capital. But yesterday's vote, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes relocated gay married couples as married.
The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.
Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who is gay, called the amendment a matter of "basic fairness."
The city's laws on same-sex unions have been murky, he explained. Couples ask, he said, "Is my marriage valid in D.C.? For years now, it has not been clear."
"It's high time we send a clear, unequivocal message to those persons of the same sex and married in another jurisdiction that their marriage is valid in D.C.," said Graham, who added, "I hope this city recognizes this is a human rights struggle."
Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), who is also gay, predicted it was only a matter of time before the council also takes up a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. "It's no secret that I have been working on legislation that would take us further," he said. "This is the march toward human rights and equality. This is not the march toward special rights. This is the equal march and that march is coming here."
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who has been chipping away at barriers for same-sex couples for years, said he saw the legislation as one that is in keeping with the city's laws. "Some are saying it's an important step. I am saying it's a simple step," said Mendelson, who authored the legislation.
Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) called the amendment "long overdue."
"We as a council need to stand in the right place and take the gray area out,"
If you are single how the hell do community property rights apply to you at all? As for insurance benefits, what benefits? a Single person can name anyone they want as a beneficiary of their insurance.
Uh, let's say I live with someone. Or 5 someones. Whatever. If I'm not "married" to one of them (I can't marry them all) they pay completely different taxes if I will them my property upon my death. And I can't get insurance based on them just being in a relationship with me, or whatever. If my girlfriend gets hurt and has to be hospitalized, I have no visitation rights - etc. etc. What about "unfair" isn't obvious here?
Let me try it another way and maybe you'll get it: if you want to get "married" in order to enjoy the legal benefits thereof, then presumably, that means that there are legal benefits. Considering that it's such an arbitrary state of affairs, it's unfair.
I'm just responding to someone who thinks that all marriage should be abolished, which I find very silly.
I don't think all marriage should be abolished. I think it should confer absolutely no legal benefits or disadvantages. Why should it??
Like most of the people on this forum, I despise religion's hold on the notion of "marriage." I just go a step further and despise marriage's hold on differential taxation, uneven inheritance laws, medical benefits, etc.
Basically the law is telling me that if I want to get communal insurance with my girlfriend, I have to "marry" her? Or I can pay three times as much. Sound fair to you?
So really, what's your complaint again?
I think Marcus is saying that you have to go through some sort of government-sanctioned commitment ritual if you want to designate someone to hold property in common with you, irrevocably specify who you want to make decisions for you when you're unable to make them for yourself, gain custody of your children and inherit your property without a legal fight when you die (remember, unmarried people can also have children), or hold responsible for child support (in households where one person puts themselves in a position of responsibility and then reneges).
If I was living with my brother's family, for example, and I wanted him to administer my hospital stay, inherit my stuff, speak for me when I couldn't, and take custody of my kids from a previous marriage, I believe I couldn't do so in the state of Texas. I could try, with expensive legal help, but these legal options would not be protected in the same way marriages are. If I died and had kids from a previous marriage, it wouldn't matter if my ex-husband was abusive, filthy, and unemployed... the law would still be on his side against my brother, who is a terrific father and husband.
Now, the only way to assure that the hospital, the probate court, and the custody judge would prefer my brother over my ex-husband would be if I married my brother, which I obviously can't do even if I remotely wanted to.
Why should the law make it so difficult for me to decide these things and make my decision stick, even though I'm not married? Do only married people somehow have the capacity to make these decisions?
Oh lord, not the GAY MARRIAGE IS TEH SAYM AS TEH BEASTEIALITYYYYYYY!!!111
Here stupids, something else for you to ignore:
http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2006/06/dont_you_want_somebody_to_fear.h…
It was written in 2006, so keep that in mind for some of the dates. But I thought it answered the OMG BEASTIALITY et al shit nicely.
"Basically the law is telling me that if I want to get communal insurance with my girlfriend, I have to "marry" her? Or I can pay three times as much. Sound fair to you?"
If you really want to have that communal insurance, what's so difficult about getting married? And also as I mentioned, there is common law marriage which (at least in Canada) bestows those same legal benefits on couples.
Or, you can advocate that the rates be brought down from non married couples (which I would agree with you there).
Again, what's the problem?
"Why should the law make it so difficult for me to decide these things and make my decision stick, even though I'm not married? Do only married people somehow have the capacity to make these decisions?"
I was waiting for someone to bring this up and it's a good point. Of course I completely agree with you that the government should be able to extend rights of visitation or legal guardianship to whomever you specify, however saying that the solution to this problem is to take those privileges away from marriages is ludicrous.
Justin, #115:
I hope that you will forgive my hasty response. What Marcus Ranum literally wrote in his post is so strange that I read something else into it.
Rereading his post, it still seems such a strange thing to say that I can't help think that either he did mean something else or he's making a joke.
Outstanding, Vermont, and hearty congratulations!
No kings,
Robert
#102
"As for insurance benefits, what benefits? a Single person can name anyone they want as a beneficiary of their insurance."
Nope. Health insurance benefits. We just did it, provided 18 forms of documentation that we are a committed loving couple, or, a marriage certificate if we were a heterosexual couple. One requires far more commitment.
If we were not a couple, I could not be named for insurance benefits.
In civil terms, marriage is a contract between the two parties that explicitly recognizes responsibilities on the part of both parties. Because of those responsibilities, certain rights are granted. The rights come with the responsibilities. For example, one reason you as a spouse would get visitation rights is because you would also bear responsibility for medical decisions in case your partner was incapacitated. Likewise, communal insurance is granted to married couples in part because they legally hold property in common, and bear some legal responsibility for each others' debts.
Without such legal responsibilities, those legal rights wouldn't make much sense.
Now, that doesn't mean that the government couldn't allow such civil contracts between (or even among) people who are not in a sexual relationship (for example, two elderly platonic friends). But the issue is more about restricting access to this legal contract, and not that such contracts grant rights.
"I hope that you will forgive my hasty response. What Marcus Ranum literally wrote in his post is so strange that I read something else into it."
No worries, at least we didn't get into a bitter argument before we realised we were on the same side! ;)
saying that the solution to this problem is to take those privileges away from marriages is ludicrous
No argument from me here. Everyone should have access to these things.
Uh, let's say I live with someone. Or 5 someones. Whatever. If I'm not "married" to one of them (I can't marry them all) they pay completely different taxes if I will them my property upon my death.
You don't have to be married to be joint tenents in the etirety (which produces no tax liability upon death of one of the owners) nor does being married ensure that by default.
Yes, being married does have certain government granted privileges, there are also some disadvantages (community property being an example, in case of a divorce). Just as having a driver's license grants some benefits over not having one.
The issue is not what privileges come with marriage that are denied to single people, it is the right to get married regardless of the sex of the partners.
A month ago you would have been absolutely right to criticise my poor intellect and blame it on my place of origin Reverend, but it's been above freezing for the last week and my brain is mostly thawed by now, so I'm afraid we'll have to search for some other explanation.
Wait, you guys actually thaw out up there?
/runs
I just noticed that this link:
http://news.aol.com/article/vermont-legalizes-gay-marriage-with-veto/41…
has a poll about whether we support gay marriage and whether we think it will come to our state soon.
I do, and I think California will have gay marriage again next year. What do you all think about your states?
If you want the government to acknowledge your partnership, it seems logical that you should have to register said partnership with the government.
Huh?? So, what, I get to register with the government that "this individual should inherit my stuff and not pay taxes on it"? How many such individuals can I register with? Why is it the state's business to decide such things?
By virtue of the fact that this state called "marriage" exists and has legal, financial, and personal benefits - it is inherently unfair. Especially because, as you say, it's (sometimes) a check-box. It is particularly egregious if it's singled out based on sexual preferences (as is/was the case with gays) but that doesn't make it any less unfair, otherwise.
Take "domestic partnerships" for example. If I lived in California, I could declare my girlfriend to be a "domestic partner" and she'd get legal and financial benefits thereby. But I can't do that in Pennsylvania (unless I get a "common law marriage") - again: inherently unfair.
The only answer to making marriage laws anything like fair is to utterly decouple them from the state and let marriage be a completely irrelevant religious ceremony. Which, considering how long they tend to last, etc, is pretty much the case anyway - except that they're entangled with all these financial and legal benefits. Or, allow anyone to have the benefits of "marriage" with any arbitrary group of other people. In a sense, we do that today, because children get different inheritance taxes based on parentage. That's also unfair, FWIW.
Take away all the benefits of being "married" or give them to everyone equally on a contractual basis, and you've got a fair system. Otherwise we're left with the kind of nonsense we have right now - same-sex are denied those benefits based on religious nonsense, or whatever. The state has no business respecting "marriage" at all and there's no way to have "marriage benefits" without the state eventually taking up a position on marriage that is unfair to someone.
"The only answer to making marriage laws anything like fair is to utterly decouple them from the state and let marriage be a completely irrelevant religious ceremony. Which, considering how long they tend to last, etc, is pretty much the case anyway - except that they're entangled with all these financial and legal benefits. Or, allow anyone to have the benefits of "marriage" with any arbitrary group of other people. In a sense, we do that today, because children get different inheritance taxes based on parentage. That's also unfair, FWIW."
You should read some of the above posts. Especially those by Tulse and Steve M.
Again, not everything about life is fair, but to argue to remove a privilege because you don't have it is backwards. Extend the privilege to others.
Sigh. No, not really.
@140 My state is one of 29 to ban same sex marriage. Which is really going to hurt us economically since we're basically shutting the door on a growing segment of the population.
Since someone was pointing out how the northeast is so gay friendly I have to include my state. Maine currently allows domestic partnerships and has a bill coming up to legalize gay marriage as well. It's looking promising. We have a pro-gay rights democrat as governor so no veto threat and the bill has 60 co-sponsors. That's a third of the entire legislature not just in favor but wanting their name on the bill before it even goes for a vote. I'm pretty hopeful right now especially with Vermont doing it first it sets a precedent.
SteveM writes:
The issue is not what privileges come with marriage that are denied to single people, it is the right to get married regardless of the sex of the partners.
No. I've just got a few people who are spazzing out because I pointed out that marriage is inherently unfair to unmarried people, to exactly the same degree (in terms of benefits) that it is unfair to bar same-sex marriages.
I totally support same-sex marriage. I always have. There's a moral dimension that it's especially unfair to withold those benefits because of the gender of the partners because of religion. That's disgusting. But it's exactly as unfair as witholding those benefits because of the number, or species, or metabolic level of the partners - whatever arbitrary restriction you come up with. It's inherently unfair for the state to offer benefits because of a meaningless check-box item. So 2 people say "I do" and get preferential taxation?
The fact that we're having this discussion is very odd to me; it seems so obvious. (scratches head) If people want it, they want it for its benefits. If its benefits are legal and financial, and are unevenly distributed, that's unfair. Gah! Are there any rationalists in the room!?
If you want the government to acknowledge your partnership, it seems logical that you should have to register said partnership with the government. Your complaints, to me, seem about as logical as complaining that people without driver's licenses are discriminated against, since they are not allowed to drive.
Right, and gay marriage is the same as bestiality.
Some people might not like the idea of a binding arrangement. It seems unfair they should be disallowed visitation. Driver's licenses are about qualification. Applying such logic to relationships sounds a bit ludicrous to me.
Civil marriages and common-law marriages and domestic partnerships are decoupled from the religious aspects of marriage -- they are essentially state-recognized contracts between two people that grant rights and impose responsibilities. There is absolutely no requirement in any state to go through a religious ceremony in order to receive those rights and accept those responsibilities.
@SteveM
You're right about this being the case in most states. HOWEVER (this is a big however), the tax burden is shifted to time of purchase for a gay couple. For instance, my partner (works a real job) makes significantly more money than I (a postdoc) do. We own a home together with it deeded as joint tenants in the entirety. Obviously, I had no money to put in the down payment for the house. Lo and behold (religious pun intended), the purchase of the house is now subject to gift tax because "my half" of the house is greater than that allowed by law for a gift ($11K at time of our purchase). This would have have been the case for a man and woman married in the eyes of the state.
I proposed to my dog, but she turned me down.
No, that's just you.
I don't have much to say... except: AWESOME!!!
Justin writes:
Again, not everything about life is fair, but to argue to remove a privilege because you don't have it is backwards. Extend the privilege to others.
I can't believe you really think that. That's insane!!
That's like telling a black person "Not everything about life is fair. Don't argue that everyone should be allowed to vote just because women got the vote. Extend the privilege to others."
Helllloo???
Look, it's been a long hard fight and I'm thrilled to see the forces of religitardery get a kick in the nuts where they're going to feel it and be wincing for a long time to come. But, great, we've added "same-sex couples" to the privileged list. What if someone wants to be in a 3-way marriage? Do they have to fight fight fight for those benefits?? Or should the state do what it's supposed to do, and try to offer a level playing field?
"Basically the law is telling me that if I want to get communal insurance with my girlfriend, I have to "marry" her? Or I can pay three times as much. Sound fair to you?"
Since you have complete freedom of choice as to whether to marry her, undertake the legal responsibilities of marriage and in return gain those benefits, or not marry her and not have the benefits or the responsibilities, yes, it sounds perfectly fair. No one ever said choices came without consequences.
Now, you have a better argument if there's someone in your life you want to give those benefits to but can't marry, which of course is the situation for gay couples in 46 states still but is not limited to them. Say I am the breadwinner and caretaker for my disabled younger brother. I can't marry him, because he's my brother, yet if I want to, say, leave my Social Security benefits to him should I die first, like a surviving spouse can collect, sorry, no can do. If I am married, there are protections built into state law (at least in my state) to guarantee that my spouse is not left penniless and homeless should my estate be eaten up by creditors, but my poor disabled brother would be out of luck. There ought to be a way to extend some of these protections to someone beyond a spouse in an appropriate situation.
'That's like telling a black person "Not everything about life is fair. Don't argue that everyone should be allowed to vote just because women got the vote. Extend the privilege to others."'
You're misconstruing my argument and you know it. I'm all for people deciding which people should get what privileges regarding their lives but I disagree with the removal of those privileges from another group of people to satisfy your persecution complex.
If you want your gf to visit you, fight for those rights, after all, if marriage loses all privileges how does that get you any closer to bestowing those privileges on your gf?
As for polygamous relationships, we as a society have decided to emphasize monogamy... If you want to change that definition go ahead, I won't try and stop you, but be prepared for resistance to change as is always the case.
This is a bit off the mark, women got the right to vote 70 or 80 years after black men.
#149:
I think you meant it would NOT have been the case ... .
Really Varlo? Where the hell did you manage to find a rawhide chew that cost two months' salary?
"This is a bit off the mark, women got the right to vote 70 or 80 years after black men."
It's also a bit off the mark as in it's THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY!
Think the homophobes are turning purple? Try this little screed over on Newsvine...
Today's little ugly ray of sunshine compliments of some fuck-tard calling himself Dragonman (and I wonder what God thinks of this Holy Joe taking on one of the totem animals of Satan, I wonder).
And in case you think he's just a homophobe, here's a followup:
What a vile piece of trash. That guy should be watched.
"I proposed to my dog, but she turned me down."
That BITCH!
#157
You're right. There would NOT have been a gift tax assessed.We are hopeful every year that the IRS doesn't audit us as our finances are quite intermingled and we would likely owe back taxes, penalties and interest for the transfers of not only money but also "goods" with value (use of cars, food, etc). Before we bought our house, he paid the rent and I lived there for free. All of that is considered a gift in the eyes of the state and is subject to "gift tax."
"You don't have to be married to be joint tenents in the etirety (which produces no tax liability upon death of one of the owners) nor does being married ensure that by default."
Actually, this is not true. The term "tenants by the entireties," at least at common law and I think still today in most states, is a special form of joint ownership for married couples only. Now, most states do allow joint tenancy with right of survivorship for people who aren't married, it just isn't called tenancy by the entireties. Property held jointly with a right of survivorship between unmarried people does pass without probate when one of them dies, but the interest of the one who died *is* subject to estate tax if their estate is large enough to be taxable.
Tulse writes:
In civil terms, marriage is a contract between the two parties that explicitly recognizes responsibilities on the part of both parties. Because of those responsibilities, certain rights are granted. The rights come with the responsibilities.
Yep. I got that. And I think we all agree that the law should not favor granting those rights and responsibilities based on religion, gender, political party, or whatever.
Indeed, I agree with you 100% that contract law is the way to go. That's what marriages have always been between the rich and powerful, anyhow. Indeed, that is what I am arguing in favor of. The state should establish those contractual frameworks and get out of the way of granting them or witholding them based on whether the parties to the contract are the same gender, or not.
If we do that, then I ought to be able to "marry" a corporation, or the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, equally without prejudice. And, as long as we clarify it in the contract, I ought to be able to "marry" Shirley and Don, while Shirley is "married" to Bill - as long as the contracts call out and all parties agree to the balance of benefits, why not? If the rationale is that the parties of the "marriage" contract are agreeing to share joint financial liability, that would be utterly reasonable. (By the way, you probably do know that even people who are not "married" can share the burden of joint responsibility - without the benefits - if there are lawsuits. My ex-girlfriend's debt collectors called me this morning trying to convince me of exactly that. :D
Which brings me back to my initial point: if my girlfriend and I want to jointly enter into a contract with an insurance company, or file our taxes as a collective - oh, oops. We can only do that if we're "married." I could probably invest a huge amount of lawyer-time and $$ to accomplish, using contracts, incorporation, trusts, collective negotiation, and powers of attorney, something close to "married" and some of its benefits -- but, again, making me jump through hoops to enjoy the same benefits as a "married" person is unfair.
At the risk of pulling a Godwin, the claim the a perceived enemy is subhuman and out to destroy all that id good and human is an old tactic. Paul Lundgren, that is some putrid shit you dug up.
#163
Props to Dana for the legal clarification. (S)he is correct about the "tenants by the entirety" being between man and woman. (S)he is wrong about the tax burden being at death for the "joint tenancy with right of survivorship." It's taxable as soon as the deed is issued since the interest in the property is transferred at that time even though the other person is not dead. At least that's how it was explained to us during our tax preparation (read tax paying since the "gift" had already been given).
Not watched; eaten.
Yes. If some group of 6 people want to live in an arrangement with community property, insurance and visitation rights, do they have to fight to change the definition of marriage to cover that too? Probably.
Yes, marriage is probably an outdated concept. It was brought on with all of the religious baggage of what it means to be a "strong family" for the good of society. It is a checkbox item where a list of default rights/benefits/responsibilities are assigned. Maybe it no longer fits what it is like to live in the real world, but I'm not willing to throw out the whole structure. Change it, extend it, work with it, or suggest another way. Your state doesn't have any kind of domestic partnership law? Work on that.
I'm really not trying to tweak you, but I'm trying to understand the alternatives. If we don't have something like marriage, how do we make a fair system?
Marcus, the fact that people are disagreeing with you doesn't make them irrational. I'm an ex-lawyer, and I think you're just babbling.
Marriage has always been about property rights, responsibilities toward each other and any children, and inheritance. That's pretty much universal. Every culture has some set of rules that parallel what we call marriage. That is why this is a state matter, and marriage has only incidentally been linked with the church. Marriage is a default method---kind of a shorthand---for settling most of those issues easily. If you want to take the default arrangement, get married. If you don't, enter into a contract.
It's not reasonable of you to expect hospitals, for example, to just take your word regarding your relationship with someone. Hospitals have a difficult enough time when parents, siblings, and spouses disagree about the care of a patient. They need to know who the default responsible party is, and that's the spouse. There are dozens and dozens of other similar situations.
Do I think that married people should get tax benefits? Not particularly. But I also don't think that yachts or mortgages should be tax deductible. The tax code is full of inequities, mostly based on lobbying and on social engineering.
Other issues, though, like inheritance and child custody, are reasonably overseen by the state--at least by default. If you don't like the default, you can write a will or contest custody.
As others have pointed out, you're complaining that you don't have the benefits of an institution that you're completely free to join! I don't have the use of the local gym, because I didn't join. I can't complain.
As for health insurance, that is usually determined by your employer, not the state. As a single person, I deeply resent the current situation: my married co-workers get what amounts to thousands of dollars in compensation because the company insures their spouses. It's a holdover from the days when married women were not expected to work at all. Do I think this benefit should be extended to gay partners? Yes. But I also think it should be eliminated completely--it's clearly discrimination based on marital status. We'll see what happens with health insurance in the next few years.
"Civil rights expanding after so many years of repression?"
Depends on what you consider to be a civil right. There are several states that ignore Article IV of the COTUS, as well as the 2nd Amendment. But, then, if you are a knee-jerk Liberal, owning and bearing arms isn't really a right, anyway, despite what the Constitution says. Between the neocons and the libtards each trashing different parts of the COTUS, there won't be much left in a few years, so you won't have to worry about that troublesome 2nd Amendment much longer anyway. Or, for that matter, the 1st, or any of the others. Civil rights in the relatively near future will consist only of what is Politically Correct, which will vary with whichever party does the most convincing snow-job on the electorate.
Back (somewhat more) on-topic:
I find it slightly amusing that gays want same-sex marriage. Marriage combines all of the legal drawbacks of corporation with all of the legal drawbacks of partnership, and not many of the benefits of either.
OTOH, gay marriage would have zero impact on my own marriage relationship, so I see no reason to oppose it, or even be particularly concerned one way or the other. Anybody who fears that gays getting married is somehow going to devalue their own marriage probably doesn't have one that is worth much to start with.
--
www.chl-tx.com (Thanks, BHO, for the fantastic stimulus you have given my business!)
Right, which is what gay marriage advocates want. But it sounded to me like you didn't want a contract with your girlfriend, unless I was mistaken.
Well, some of the rights and responsibilities we typically grant in marriage wouldn't make sense in many of those cases -- I doubt that a corporation is going to adopt a child, or require medical decisions to be made for it. But generally I agree with you that people should be allowed to set up whatever contracts they want. I'm not clear, however, that such isn't legally possible now, except that there is no pre-existing model, such as the standard marriage agreement. (Perhaps someone more expert in the law could clarify how closely one could recreate the legal framework of marriage with standard contract law.) But sure, I'd be fine with mutual guardianship arrangements, and with platonic "civil union" contracts, and whatever else you like.
That's pretty much a non-sequitur. You can be sued for anything -- whether you can be successfully sued is another matter entirely.
That's right, but there's nothing special about calling it "marriage". Call it a "domestic partnership" if you like. Call it a "civil union". The language really doesn't matter. The point is the contract into which you enter.
You don't get the benefits without agreeing to the responsibilities. If you want to arrange those responsibilities through other legal means, sure, go ahead, but what would the point be? Honestly, is it just the term "marriage" that bothers you, or is it the demand that there be an acknowledged contractual relationship between you and your girlfriend?
Justin writes:
I'm all for people deciding which people should get what privileges regarding their lives but I disagree with the removal of those privileges from another group of people to satisfy your persecution complex.
It's not a persecution complex; I'm simply pointing out some economic realities.
Of course I was misconstruing your argument. It's called reductio ad absurdum - your argument, if you turn it around and look at it carefully, is wrong. I was trying to get you to realize that.
I disagree with the removal of those privileges from another group of people to satisfy your persecution complex.
That's where you made your mistake. Remove the benefits from EVERYONE and you are being fair. I'm not saying same sex couples should not have the benefits of marriage. I'm saying marriage benefits are unfair, regardless of who has them. And - to forestall Tulse's argument - saying that marriage has liabilities as well is mostly irrelevant because I'm not being given the choice of either.
Saying gee they fought really HARD to get those privileges; you don't get them because you haven't fought for your rights implicitly accepts my point: namely that economic fairness is my right.
#90
NJ tends to be live-and-let-live, and its politicians tend not to be too far to the right or left, so it wouldn't surprise me if an SSM initiative were successful there. I don't have any inside information, that's just my guess.
"Of course I was misconstruing your argument. It's called reductio ad absurdum - your argument, if you turn it around and look at it carefully, is wrong. I was trying to get you to realize that."
Except for it to actually work you'd have to have it represent the logical conclusion of my argument. Which is not that "women should suck it up because black people can vote", it's that "saying that no one should vote simply because women can't is absurd".
Which is what your position is.
That's where you made your mistake. Remove the benefits from EVERYONE and you are being fair. I'm not saying same sex couples should not have the benefits of marriage. I'm saying marriage benefits are unfair, regardless of who has them. And - to forestall Tulse's argument - saying that marriage has liabilities as well is mostly irrelevant because I'm not being given the choice of either."
By that logic (and I'm following the true course of your logic) one can state that no one should own property because it's unfair to the homeless.
Listen, I'm not saying that the situations you're bringing up are not unfair, but the course of action that you pursue to correct the problem is wrong-headed.
"Props to Dana for the legal clarification. (S)he is correct about the "tenants by the entirety" being between man and woman. (S)he is wrong about the tax burden being at death for the "joint tenancy with right of survivorship." It's taxable as soon as the deed is issued since the interest in the property is transferred at that time even though the other person is not dead. At least that's how it was explained to us during our tax preparation (read tax paying since the "gift" had already been given)."
Actually, both are true. Yes, there would be a taxable *gift* at the time of the deed if one partner provided all the money and both were put on the deed, so *gift tax* would potentially be incurred, although the federal exemption for gift tax is so high that no gift tax should have to be paid unless you were buying a megamansion, and most states don't have a state gift tax anymore. However, it is also true that once both of the parties are on the deed, when one of them dies, their interest is taxable for *estate* tax purposes, although the estate tax exemption is now $3.5 million, so again, not a concern for most of us.
Let's be clear on one thing: marriage as a cultural and economic institution predates religion as we're describing it today.
You're certainly free to criticise the religious baggage associated with the modern institution, but it was most certainly not invented by Hindu, Jain, Egyptian, or Jewish priests, so let's give that little "it's a religious institution" myth a rest. Like most myths, it only feeds conservative dogma.
One more thing.
"...to forestall Tulse's argument - saying that marriage has liabilities as well is mostly irrelevant because I'm not being given the choice of either."
How are you not? Either you choose to enter marriage, or you do not. No one is taking that choice away from you. As someone upthread pointed out, actions do have consequences.
Dana writes:
Since you have complete freedom of choice as to whether to marry her, undertake the legal responsibilities of marriage and in return gain those benefits, or not marry her and not have the benefits or the responsibilities, yes, it sounds perfectly fair.
Sorry, that's not a valid argument. First off, you can't assume that I have the freedom to marry her (as it turns out, I don't) - in fact, in our particular situation, I'm legally not permitted to marry her.
I don't want this argument to be about me, though. I was simply referring to my own situation to illustrate the problem.
Let me try this ANOTHER way. Your argument is that a couple can choose to form a collective and gain a set of benefits and liabilities by doing so. Call it "marriage" if you like. So, it's fair because I can look at those benefits and liabilities and make a choice. And, we both agree that it's unfair for the state to say "only a man and woman can enter into that collective state." And, we both agree that it's unfair for the state to say "same sex partners cannot enter into that collective state." But you're saying it's fair that I can't have the choice between those benefits and liabilities if I am single?
Either the state of being married is special, or it's not. If it's special - it's unfair to those who aren't. If it's not, then it's irrelevant and nobody'd want to do it, so it's probably special.
By the way, I generally don't buy the "benefits and liabilities" line of reasoning. If the liabilities were substantial, nobody rational would want to get married. We all know that being married confers substantial economic benefits and we're all familiar with tools like prenups that are used to cap the downside liability. If the state guaranteed that the liabilities and benefits of marriage were exactly balanced, we'd find that people wouldn't bother doing it and would just opt for a party or a religious ceremony.
Janine,
I couldn't agree more. And I did it for two reasons: 1) I'm speechless that there is such revolting bigotry in the world and 2) I want to make people aware of just how much hatred the bigots are capable so they recognize that it's not just stupid, but dangerous. We need to remember just how ugly and potentially violent these people are.
Thanks for letting me clarify.
Justin writes:
Either you choose to enter marriage, or you do not. No one is taking that choice away from you.
I was not trying to make this about me. But - no, I can't marry her. It would be against the law, actually. So...
"Sorry, that's not a valid argument. First off, you can't assume that I have the freedom to marry her (as it turns out, I don't) - in fact, in our particular situation, I'm legally not permitted to marry her."
Actually that IS a valid argument. You have the choice to enter marriage or you do not. If you cannot marry someone, then fight for your legal right to bestow that someone with the various rights of marriage. It's not really that difficult a concept.
"By the way, I generally don't buy the "benefits and liabilities" line of reasoning. If the liabilities were substantial, nobody rational would want to get married. We all know that being married confers substantial economic benefits and we're all familiar with tools like prenups that are used to cap the downside liability. If the state guaranteed that the liabilities and benefits of marriage were exactly balanced, we'd find that people wouldn't bother doing it and would just opt for a party or a religious ceremony."
What exactly is your point? Of course society wants people to get married, so that's why they offer incentives.
However, and I shall repeat this, if you think that your situation is unfair, then fight to rectify it, NOT by taking privileges away from others, BUT to give yourself those same privileges, and I would fully support you along the way.
Brownian said: Not watched; eaten.
People bacon? Mmmmm.
Oh, shit. Now someone will say something about atheists being cannibals.
Justin,
Why should society care? At all.
Also unless I'm horribly misunderstanding Marcus he is talking about extending those privileges. To anybody in any sort of a relationship.
"Also unless I'm horribly misunderstanding Marcus he is talking about extending those privileges. To anybody in any sort of a relationship."
From what I gather, he wants to do away with marriage so that society would have to rearrange itself to let people decide who gets certain legal benefits...
And I'm fine for people being able to state who gets those privileges and under what circumstances... I just personally think that society is fine in stating that the spouse is the default unless stated otherwise.
I think Marcus has a valid point when it comes to tax advantages that married couples have, as opposed to single people. Especially when one spouse makes a significantly larger income than the other, assuming both work.
By having the option to file jointly, they are able to pay on the average of the incomes, instead of the actual income, and that can be unfair.
It's an option that unmarried people will never have.
sorry when I said "marriage" in post 184 I meant marriage as a legal entity.
Brownian, OM writes:
Let's be clear on one thing: marriage as a cultural and economic institution predates religion as we're describing it today.
Yep. Pair-bonding is biology stuff; lots of critters that are free of religion do it. It got co-opted into religion's NOMA a long time ago.
And it's only (relatively) recently that the state has decided to grant or withhold economic benefits based on it.
As a rationalist, I observe that we meat robots pair-bond just like other animals, and, just like other animals, we un-bond sometimes or sometimes bond for life. The "what god has joined, let no man break asunder" dictum is probably more often broken than honored, too. :) Animals' pair-bonding behavior is strange and often beautiful - and it's often a crucial economic/life sustaining transaction between the mates. I won't say "that's as it should be" - because "that's how it is."
There are lots of animals that have N-way "marriages" and the notion of a nuclear family as a "natural" grouping is completely wrong. So how can anyone justify the state's involvement in offering economic benefits for 2-pairs over 3 pairs or singleton swingers, or whatever? The state should get completely out of the marriage business; practically and economically. Anything else is unfair to someone.
Justin,
I can't help but notice that you ignored my first question.
And no he has stated many times that he does not want to do away with marriage. He has stated that those benefits should not be dependent on or conferred by marriage.
"And I'm fine for people being able to state who gets those privileges and under what circumstances... I just personally think that society is fine in stating that the spouse is the default unless stated otherwise."
If that were the case I'd have to agree with you. But that is very much -not- the case. The case right now is that it's the spouse or society will not confer those privileges and rights on anybody. There is no easy legal method to change that default. In fact I'd go so far as to say that in practical terms there's no way to shift that default at all. So marriage is very much given a privileged position.
Which goes back to the question you ignored. Why should that be?
"Why should society care? At all."
Well before I make an assumption and go rambling on for pages and pages, may I ask; Why should society care about what?
(also VERY sorry for the rapid fire posting!)
Why should society care if people get married or not?
"Which goes back to the question you ignored. Why should that be?"
It shouldn't, and I've been trying to say that since the beginning. I don't argue with your position, I argue with your methodology of a solution.
"Why should society care if people get married or not?"
Traditionally or in present times?
Right now. Today. What's the point?
"Right now. Today. What's the point?"
Depends on your view of the world. Right wingers like to state that a marriage is a great way to increase the population legitimately (we can argue about flaws or whatnot later, and this isn't written in stone as I am not omniscient), so they encourage people to get married.
Most people like to think that marriage is a display of their love for another person (Again, the caveats apply). So they want to get married. The perks are a bonus.
Which brings me to why arguing that you take away those perks is wrong headed. Sure it's the more efficient approach, but how do you think people will react when they realise what you're trying to do? They'll resist you, sometimes quite fiercely. I cite as an example the Men's "Rights" Advocacy groups as a backlash to feminism.
If you advocate that people who are unmarried or not able to marry should be able to receive those same benefits based on their circumstances, you'll find a lot less resistance.
That's what I've been trying to explain...
Why should the IRS care?
Justin,
If those rights and privileges are decoupled from marriage then they are available to everybody. Both those who are married or not. Correct?
So how is this a bad thing?
For a concrete example taxes. There are significant benefits to a couple that owns a house with each other being able to file taxes jointly. A married couple can do that right now. A non-married couple could not. If we were to decouple the right to file jointly from marriage both of them could.
This is bad?
sng,
I suggest you read what I'm trying to say again. Yes I agree with you and yes what you propose would work... in theory.
Just how exactly are you going to get people to agree to implement this though?
Better yet, why not just eliminate the ability to file jointly?
You pay taxes on the amount you earn.
How is this possibly unfair?
"If those rights and privileges are decoupled from marriage then they are available to everybody. Both those who are married or not. Correct?"
This is not a zero-sum game. You can have benefits both be coupled to marriage AND available to everyone.
"Sorry, that's not a valid argument. First off, you can't assume that I have the freedom to marry her (as it turns out, I don't) - in fact, in our particular situation, I'm legally not permitted to marry her."
I didn't see anything you said to indicate that you *couldn't* marry her, so I apologize for making the assumption. As I said, I do consider that a different issue. I have no problem with heterosexual romantically involved couples who could choose to marry and choose not to being denied the benefits of marriage by making the choice not to marry, but it does seem unfair that there are some of those benefits which cannot be obtained for anyone but a spouse. The remedy is for those who are in such situations to fight for changes in the law to expand these benefits.
Hold on Marcus; it depends on how you define 'economic'. Marriage in human history has often carried economic sanctions or benefits with it, from as trivial as "from now on until they call it quits, nobody else is allowed sexual access to these two (or three, or four)" to marriages for the purpose of solidifying political alliances and power structures. But there was no big jump from "we can marry anyone we please, no strings attached" to state-sanctioned matrimony only. Consider dowries and bride prices--they've been around since before Buddha was a gleam; they were (and are) often exhorbitive, and yet the state wasn't the one taking the cut, its earlier surrogate was, namely the friends, family, and distant relations that made up one's village or tribe.
People really like to blame 'the state' as if it's responsible for all these new-fangled controls on our lives, but it's only a formalisation of what we've been doing since language was invented.
I bet they were trying to save the world from global warming.
Justin,
Your failure of imagination doesn't mean the problem is insolvable. Not that many years ago the same question could have been asked about gay marriage.
Speaking of which I almost forgot. GO VERMONT!!! And IOWA! This really does rock and I couldn't be more excited about it.
Returning to my rant. :)
I don't know. But since we now agree that taking these rights away from married people and giving them to everybody is a good idea you might think about that. I'm just a painfully introverted and socially awkward netadmin. Not really the guy to figure out how to start a movement for social change. I'll support it but I can't figure it out. I am glad that you now agree that it's a worthy goal, though.
My preferred method would be to convince each and every person with logic. As I've done here. But I understand that isn't going to happen and will leave the question of how to those better suited than myself to answer it.
Also lest we lose sight of what's really important here.
YAY VERMONT!!!
"I don't know. But since we now agree that taking these rights away from married people and giving them to everybody is a good idea you might think about that.'
I don't agree with taking rights away from anyone. Ever.
I however agree that those benefits can be extended to others.
Nominal Egg,
I like my friends who are couples and would like to see them have that right because I like them.
Justin,
Uh. If they are available to everyone they are at that point, by definition, decoupled from marriage. Unless you create some new version that's tied to marriage. In which case we're right back where we started.
"Uh. If they are available to everyone they are at that point, by definition, decoupled from marriage. Unless you create some new version that's tied to marriage. In which case we're right back where we started."
I'd love to throw the "failure of imagination" back at you, but I'm not going to! So nyah!
Anyhow consider this;
When you get married all the rights and privileges are granted to you by default (coupled).
However, if you wish to apply for those privileges due to a specific circumstance, you may do so, with no penalty whatsoever (available to everyone).
Easy no?
Justin,
And what is the upside to that as opposed to simply making those rights and privileges available to everybody regardless of status?
Ummmm......what?
If you are referring to your married friends that have the "right" to file jointly, what about your unmarried-but-coupled friends? Or your single friends. They do not have that "right."
Don't you like them?
How is an unfair tax advantage a "right" anyhow?
I don't agree with taking rights away from anyone. Ever.
I however agree that those benefits can be extended to others.
OY! Thickness!
The point is that there are social benefits distributed through marriage and the material privileging of that relationship. Decoupling those benefits from marriage, socializing social benefits(!), is "taking them away" from the marriage contract, but through the broader socialization of the benefits not effectively taking them away from people who currently enjoy them.
Tards like this make it difficult to change out west: http://mouthatroared-renay.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-showed-some-spine-h…
"And what is the upside to that as opposed to simply making those rights and privileges available to everybody regardless of status?"
Because single people should have the option of NOT being coupled to someone (beit their parents, or their bf/gf) for legal benefits.
If I don't want to share property with my bf then I shouldn't have to (which would be the case if everyone was considered part of a multi-person entity).
"The point is that there are social benefits distributed through marriage and the material privileging of that relationship. Decoupling those benefits from marriage, socializing social benefits(!), is "taking them away" from the marriage contract, but through the broader socialization of the benefits not effectively taking them away from people who currently enjoy them."
Semantics! I don't disagree with extending the benefits and privileges of marriage to people who are currently not considered for such benefits, but why the need to decouple?
It makes no sense.
If I am so hateful, the why are so many mothballs around here speaking filthy to me. Where's your tolerance? By the way, has anyone attempted to research this? How was the wonderful sinless man of faith, Howard Dean involved in this scandal?
Well, at least the South has still got a sliver of brains left.
How many states allow gay unionism now?
Let's count:
Cubafornia
Messachussetts
Pervmont
Gayowa
I suppose Nude York and Mannisota are next.
Well, when fire comes crashing down and California slides into the ocean and China invades, don't ask for my commentary. You already know that I'll just say I told you so.
Nominal Egg,
I was answering the question about why the right should exist. And, you are correct, privilege is the correct word.
Using taxes as an example. There are circumstances where being able to file jointly confers significant benefits. My take is that any set of people for whom there are benefits should be able to avail themselves of that privilege. Married or not. I'm speaking in terms of couples because those situations rarely arise for single people. But if they were then they should be able to avail themselves of that privilege.
I thought that much was clear from previous comments. My bad. I was answering the question of why I think the privilege should exist at all. And my answer was basically an attempt at a semi-humorous way of saying "because it's a nice thing for those who would benefit from it."
But, yes, the privilege should be extended to everybody who could benefit from it regardless of status.
Well, when fire comes crashing down and California slides into the ocean and China invades, don't ask for my commentary. You already know that I'll just say I told you so.
Gosh derender is SO right. I mean look at Canada! We've been a radioactive wasteland (invaded by China!) for about... 5 years now.
Here is a related post. Have any of you guys and gals seen this today?
Federally Funded Group Advises Teens on How to Decide if They Are Gay
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46200
don't ask for my commentary
I wouldn't worry on that score.
Justin writes:
Actually that IS a valid argument. You have the choice to enter marriage or you do not. If you cannot marry someone, then fight for your legal right to bestow that someone with the various rights of marriage.
(I just got her permission to post this piece of information that was not mine to unilaterally disclose)
She's already married to someone else. I do NOT have the choice to marry her. Again, I wanted to not make this discussion about my personal situation; I only raised it as an example.
Further, when you enjoin me to "fight for your rights" you are admitting that I have them in the first place and that the question of fair or not fair is appropriately raised.
Here's the problem: If I fought for those rights and attained them, then I would be joining the privileged list. That is not a moral action. It is a selfish action. It is more moral to remove the imbalance than pat yourself on the back, "well, I got mine" and be done.
Let me try a few questions:
- Do you believe the government has any business legislating what a marriage is?
- Do you believe married people should have social or legal advantages as a consequence of being married?
- Do you believe that the government should legislate the granting or withholding of social, legal, or financial advantages based on race, creed, or sexual orientation?
deranged (#213): You dare speak of tolerance? What hypocrisy!
However, you do receive two (2) Golden Wingnut Points for playing the "Howard Dean, Liberal Bogeyman" card. You have amused me. Well done, Mucosus invertebratus caputithyphallicus.
Justin,
So if you happen to be in a relationship and don't want to take advantage of those rights and privileges then ... don't. Married people can and do file separately. So could you. You could also file jointly if you wanted to. All this does is increase your set of choices to the same as a married couple. It can't hurt you. It can only benefit you.
To quote from Merriam Webster for the word couple "something that joins or links two things together". Right now these rights and privileges are coupled to marriage. In other words you can only get them by being married. If we make them available to everybody they are, by definition, decoupled from marriage.
You can't have them coupled to marriage and available to everybody. It really is an either or thing.
...don't ask for my commentary...
Um, shit stain on the panties of life, no one asked for your commentary. And, once more you poor whiny baby, Some of us are swearing at you? You had a bug up your ass before anyone said a cross word to you. Anyway, being sworn at in nothing compared to being discriminated against and being physically attacked for being GLBT. Sorry, but I have no fucking sympathy for your agony.
One last thing, I am tolerant, very tolerant but up to a point. When an other person's intolerance places a limit to tolerance.
For a person who wants to appear as a big bad man with a bad ass gun in your hand, you sure do cry a lot. And don't you fucking slam your door when you stomp off to your bedroom.
Hey "Nude York" derender, I saw something very true in one of your posts. "This world is sick, twisted,demented perverted and stupid". Every time I see your bile contaminating the internet, it confirms that notion in my mind.
All this anger because a state has given rights to people who dare to have a different lifestyle than yours. And you wonder why you are called hateful! Boy, your English sucks.
PS: I have some advice for you, though I know it is way over your head. You don't like to be called on your homophobia and racism, stop trolling the web.
And my take is that any privilege that is not available to everyone (especially one as arbitrary as tax rate) should not exist, no matter how nice it is for the privileged.
Any time fire and brimstone wanna clear up the last of this snow, I'll be happy.
Seriously, don't the religious ever get tired of their failure to predict the future? It must be painful to be that wrong all the time--like sitting through an advanced calculus class without ever having taken algebra. No wonder they're scared shitless of everything: they're like gerbils in a new cage.
Here Derender: here's a carrot. Shhh. There's a good boy. Now you just settle down in your wood shavings and nap for awhile.
So all those poor straights have been subjecting themselves to this cruel form of self-induced legal punishment called marriage for eons because... why? *shakes head*
Nominal Egg,
Which is why I'm arguing for it's expansion to everybody.
"She's already married to someone else. I do NOT have the choice to marry her. Again, I wanted to not make this discussion about my personal situation; I only raised it as an example."
My condolences, but I would point out that your situation is not unique and there are legal recourses.
"Do you believe the government has any business legislating what a marriage is?"
Yes I would like to be recognized as a legal entity by the country I live in for a) census reason and b) legal reasons
"Do you believe married people should have social or legal advantages as a consequence of being married?"
Yes because they decided to commit their relationship and therefore pool their resources in a legal manner.
"Do you believe that the government should legislate the granting or withholding of social, legal, or financial advantages based on race, creed, or sexual orientation?"
No, and we're comparing apples to oranges now.
Again, and I will spell this out in simple words. Those benefits that are available to married couples should be available to anyone upon request without penalty.
Is my position SO hard to understand?
"Here's the problem: If I fought for those rights and attained them, then I would be joining the privileged list. That is not a moral action. It is a selfish action. It is more moral to remove the imbalance than pat yourself on the back, "well, I got mine" and be done."
Good job undermining the civil rights movements and women's suffrage.
You fight for yourself and other people in your situtation. It's up to all of us to correct injustices. If you feel unable to the task, there are places you can go that will help you.
Brownian, I know you aren't supposed to have a sense of humor, but that characterization of derender was F'ing hilarious.
"So if you happen to be in a relationship and don't want to take advantage of those rights and privileges then ... don't. Married people can and do file separately. So could you. You could also file jointly if you wanted to. All this does is increase your set of choices to the same as a married couple. It can't hurt you. It can only benefit you."
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND!?
You can still have it bestowed by default through marriage, or, file for them in an alternate circumstance. Seriously this is the twentieth time I've written this.
sng,
How can you expand "Married-Filing Jointly" to a single person living alone?
The only real solution I know of is to remove marital status from any consideration of tax obligation.
Posted by: derender:
What? We are speaking harshly to you BECAUSE you are hateful. What make you think that atheists are tolerant? Dumber than shit.
Yep, and that's about all some have ever had.
We aren't asking for your commentary now.
We're asking you to go away.
Watchman:
Huh? I don't speak chinese. I am American. I speak English (only).
------------------
Janine:
You again? Are you still upset over the other night? Are you still being a pest? Better go get your cape, it'll be dark soon, but watch out for all those crosses. You might vaporize if you accidentally touch one. No I do not have a bug up my you know what but I do indeed believe that you have a tarantula up yours and it's hungry. Better go feed it.
Justin,
My question is why should one have to "file for it"? It should not be bestowed via marriage or filed for. It should simply be.
If I'm in a situation with another person and it would benefit us to to file jointly then we should be able to file jointly. Simple as that. If I want to file jointly with one person and then turn around and tell the hospital I want another person to have visitation rights for me I should be able to do that. No filing, no asking the government, no being an exception to the default. It should simply be.
The thing I'm asking you about is why there should be a default special state as opposed to these things simply being your right to do with any damned person you care to do them with.
Hello. Long-time lurker, first-time poster.
There are currently 1,138 federal rights, benefits, and privileges to marriage. While some of these rights, benefits, and privileges can be arranged for in other ways, many cannot. That's been one of the underlying arguments of the same-sex marriage movement--that domestic partnerships, civil unions, private contracts, etc. are not equal to marriage because the law does not allow certain benefits to be bestowed in any way but marriage.
So, no, you can't necessarily make alternate arrangements if you cannot/do not choose to marry. Or did I misunderstand that discussion?
Nominal Egg,
Right. I'm talking about removing the "married" bit. And then if you want to file jointly with your best buddy you could go for it. Knock yourself out. If you have no best buddy to file jointly with at that point well that's tough. Maybe talk somebody at the pub into it?
Derender. Go away. You're boring and a waste of server space. Go play with a lighter and some gasoline. Don't you have couple planks you need to nail together and burn?
Hey filthy derender, it's a pity you speak no language other than English, because in English you fail. You may want to look at my last post to see why.
"My question is why should one have to "file for it"? It should not be bestowed via marriage or filed for. It should simply be."
But what if I don't want it to be?
I will quote you from earlier:
"So if you happen to be in a relationship and don't want to take advantage of those rights and privileges then ... don't."
Ok but how does that apply to joint property? That's pretty cut and dry default unless you sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Should I do that if I want to move in with my roommate?
It's far more efficient (and causes less headaches) if you apply for it if you want it, and don't if you don't want it, as opposed to having it if you don't want it and trying to sort through all the legal goo to get out of it.
What? English is your native language?
Oh.
Huh.
You sure had me fooled.
Aconite,
I think at this point we've long gone past "what is" and into, "what should be".
I have to love that you are as stupid as you are deranged, shit stain on the panties of life. I am hardly a pest, in fact, going by that comments I get from many of the people here, I am rather well liked. It is you who is the pest here. It is you who gets mocked here.
Did you even notice how many people said that they did not ask you for your commentary? I was not the only one.
I curse you out because you keep moaning about it. You were moaning about since before anyone swore at you, you deluded fuck.
As for being upset, those exchange of words did not upset me. The time you spend online getting angry is time you are not in the real world making life more difficult for people like me.
Also, you are welcome to keep calling me a vampire. Most of the people here already know you are a small minded creep. Me, I think I could go for living fast, staying young and never dying.
But thank you for being such a willing punching bag.
I suppose Nude York and Mannisota are next.
Haha! Mannesota. I'll have to tell my bro that one. Oh by the way, its an "e" not an "i", spelling champ.
That just makes me think of lumberjacks, flapjacks and beer-battered fish. And smashing people into the boards (hockey reference fyi).
Although, those can all apply to women as well.
Now that I think of it...derendy well may be a foreign spy. Remember all the nasty things he was saying about the President yesterday?
Derender...
*headdesk* (that makes three today)
No Chinese was spoken (or written for that matter). Also, if you were fluent in English you might be aware of the punctuation rules for a proper noun, such as Chinese.
No one wants your commentary, and to be honest I've heard better arguments for your beliefs out of small children not yet old enough to know better.
uninsightful ape:
you said: All this anger because a state has given rights to people who dare to have a different lifestyle than yours.
You just messed up. You were not supposed to say that. Gays are born gay, remember?
You are now admitting that I am right and that gayism is a choice, not a hereditary thing?
The magic word here is "choice". YES, they CHOOSE to be gay. Ever heeard of peope,who leave the gay lifestyle after finding God?
Derender, you are such a massive fail. That mucosus invertebratus caputithyphallicus isn't Chinese, it's Latin, as used in scientific names. Even without looking it up, I knew it meant something like "slimey, spineless dick-head". And a quick Google confirms that.
And it's a good description, even though it leaves out your hate, your stupidity and your illiteracy.
In English then: Derender, you are a loser.
Go away.
And I'm talking about removing the "jointly" bit.
That's the unfair part.
"The magic word here is "choice". YES, they CHOOSE to be gay. Ever heeard of peope,who leave the gay lifestyle after finding God?"
So when did you choose to be straight derender?
Justin,
Never been through a divorce, eh? :)
Joint property is far from cut and dried. Nor is it really a ... privilege. It's more something you have to deal with when any relationship ends. There just happens to be a set of laws and regulations surrounding it in divorce law because that situation is well known for getting rather messy. But really it's no different than any other way of dividing up things at the end of any relationship. Just more formalized. I would go so far as to argue that if you have that many problems dividing up things when a roommate moves out that you might benefit from a formal method for doing so. Again if you don't have that problem then that formal method wouldn't apply to you.
If you mean community property. Well that's only nine states and is rather complex. But again it's not really so much a right or privilege as a way of dividing things up at the end of a relationship. Not really getting how that would apply to a roommate. Or what it has to do with this convo. But ok.
Derender, being gay is not a choice.
How do I know? Because I'm a pragmatist. So if it were a choice, I'd have chosen to be bi. That way I'd have more options.
"If you mean community property. Well that's only nine states and is rather complex. But again it's not really so much a right or privilege as a way of dividing things up at the end of a relationship. Not really getting how that would apply to a roommate. Or what it has to do with this convo. But ok."
You're missing my greater point, which is that it's better and more efficient to have people apply if they want those privileges.
We do it for marriage, it makes sense to do it for everyone else too.
Now, idiotic derendy, now...I was right when I said your English sucked. I said "dare", I didn't say "choose". You obviously don't know that, but the two are not synonymous. By "dare" I meant, show their natural tendency despite harassment by hateful, backward fascists like you. Oh, and I mean literally fascist, Germany and Italy during World War II weren't the safest places for gays: they wouldn't DARE show it, or they would be sent to death camps.
I have heard of gay people who swallowed your dogmatic fairy tale of a god, and came to hate themselves, and couldn't have any kind of relationship afterwards. That's true and sad.
Someone is worried about gay marriage leading to pet marriage. It's kind of like flag burning in that it's extremely rare, but opponents of gay marriage like to bring it up.
I do remember reading a story some time ago about a man who wanted to marry his horse, but the registrar wouldn't issue the license because the horse wasn't old enough according to state law!
congrats Vermont! this is quite the month already :-)
and on the other issue that cropped up: I'm also for decoupling "significant other" benefits from the concept of marriage. for one, because for the right to marry of every possible constellation of people will take just about forever and waste ridiculous amounts of resources; two, the concept of marriage is so tied up with the concept of a loving, sexual relationship, that certain combinations would NEVER gain approval for marriage, and possibly shouldn't, either (didn't we just establish that adult-child marriages are out of the question? so then what about giving those benefits to that disabled brother of yours? not gonna happen as long as those benefits are tied up with the concept of marriage); three, some people simply find the legalistic burden of the whole marriage-package-deal to be a burden on their relationship, and as such won't get married anyway. doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to decide who will visit them in the hospital, or being able to move abroad with their "significant other", or any number of possibilities.
Steve_C
Derender. Go away. You're boring and a waste of server space. Go play with a lighter and some gasoline. Don't you have couple planks you need to nail together and burn?"
---
Well gasoline does make good fire ant killer. So does chlorox. They both work better that that junk you buy that has such weak poison in it. I wish I could find some farmer that stockpiled DDT back in the day. Then, I could get rid of some ants around this place. maybe mosquitos and gnats too. I'm sure someone still has some put away somewhere.
---------------
Janine:
Thanks, but maybe you are diluted too.
----------------
Menyambal :
How was I supposed to know what that meant. It's not like I went to Latin school or something. I don't speak Latin (or Chinese). It all looks the same when it's not in ENGLISH. And no I speaka no spanisha. English. If you wish to know something, ask me in ENGLISH. Are you an illegal alien? Do you speak English? Or are you a latinese person?
I hear some here in my own state that I know are illegal, but I don't bother them as long as they are minding their own business, but if they tell me "No speaka Englis" I reply "wella den, me no speaka spanglish ".
I think we've been infiltrated.
deerender:
Do you have a point to make?
Or did you just come here to insult people?
I can't remember where I read it, maybe here, but someone proposed that modern divorce allows heterosexuals to practice polygamy. For instance, in Marcus Ranum's case, the person he wants to couple with could divorce the person she is married to now and then marry Marcus. (What is stopping that? The reaction of society?) They could do this multiple times until one of them dies, and even then the two who are left over could continue marrying and divorcing as much as they want until one of them dies. Someone needs to start implementing strategic marriage groups for straights that take advantage of this. It obviously would work, just look how quickly Britney Spears went in and out of marriage.Gays made progress today and yesterday, but are nowhere near the end goal yet of equality with heterosexuals.
"How was I supposed to know what that meant. It's not like I went to Latin school or something. I don't speak Latin (or Chinese). It all looks the same when it's not in ENGLISH. And no I speaka no spanisha. English. If you wish to know something, ask me in ENGLISH. Are you an illegal alien? Do you speak English? Or are you a latinese person?"
Wow... just... wow.
Also, I give up RE: marriage. I've stated what I think would be ideal, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
er. that shoud have been "fighting for the right to marry of every possible configuration"
double-oops.
If there haven't been any calls to have derender plonked then I'm making one based on his moronic racism (post #255). If ditching his ignorant, hateful ass has already been called for then I add my support to it.
Flush this turd, PZ. We've got a lot to celebrate today and this woo-addled scum is harshing the buzz.
Derender is back showing us why he and his ilk are the village idiots. Absolutely no concept of the real world, just the imaginary one between their ears.
so derender: in light of the fact that the us doesn't have an official language, why exactly SHOULD other people learn another language, but not you?
probably just hiding the fact that you're barely capable of expressing yourself in one language, nevermind learning a new one, aren't you.
Divorce takes time. Perhaps she is in the process, but, quite frankly, Marcus Ranum's personal situation is irrelevant. The point is, not everyone has the option of marriage, and there should be no rights and/or privileges that can only be attained through marriage.
Janine:
Thanks, but maybe you are diluted too.
I was dissolved in water?
"The point is, not everyone has the option of marriage, and there should be no rights and/or privileges that can only be attained through marriage."
I'll drink to that! :)
Jstn:
I chs t b strght whn ws brn lk vrbdy ls. Ask th Amrcn Psychlgcl Assctn bt hmsxlty nd WHO hs bn bllyng thm t chng thr mnds bt thy css f t. Y my wnt t rsrch tht. Hmsxlty s psychlgcl nd s mst ftn drvd frm n bsv chldhd r chldhd whr nly n prnt ws prsnt r th chld ws svrly nglctd. Th frst svn yr f chld's lf s th mst crcl yrs. It dfns th bgnnng f thr prsnlts nd trts vn thgh ths trts my tnd t vry nd chng vr tm s th prsn s sbjctd t vrs nvrnmnts. I rg y t d stdy r sk th APA bt ths s. Myb n nblld dctr cn tll y th trth.
Cn y mgn hw mssd p chld wll b wth tw "prnts" f th sm gndr? Tlk bt psychlgy lssn!
All f y wnt t cll m bgt, bt nn f y hv th gts t fnd smthng t fr yrslf bsds wht sm lftst n Md Mttrs kps spwng frth.
If I m hmphb, thn t mns tht th prsn wh clld m ths mst b Gdphb r Cnsrvphb. Rght?
[I really don't like immigrant-bashing ignorant homophobes. Straighten up and say something constructive, or you're out of here. --pzm]
I feel I better qualify that to sng. Divorce is only difficult if you make it difficult. If you treat it as a mutually agreeable legal termination, nothing at all is difficult about it. The problem is that it is usually a one-sided or uncooperative ordeal.Maybe someone could open up a business that caters just to that kind of strategic straight coupling with legal contracts drawn up and ready to go so people don't have to waste time filling out the marriage contracts/divorce papers. There are instant wedding chapels, maybe there are instant divorce courts. If so, merge them and you get something very close to what Marcus Ranum wants, except it will only work for straights.
The timing of 264 and 265 is just too weird.
"in light of the fact that the us doesn't have an official language, why exactly SHOULD other people learn another language, but not you?
probably just hiding the fact that you're barely capable of expressing yourself in one language, nevermind learning a new one, aren't you."
We should demand he speak in North America's true language! Ojibwa!
Wrong. It means they are observant and intelligent.
I'm a life-long vermonter. So happy this happened. Now there's twice as many people to not marry!
Seriously though, wooooot. GO VERMONT.
In a huge pile of stupid derender manages to drop a nugget of even more concentrated stupid for us to marvel at.
Hmm, let's think about that, shall we - how, exactly, did you research this in order to put yourself in a position to make an informed decision? Books? The internet? Documentaries?
Here's a hint, you brainless waste of carbon: babies cannot make decisions about their sexuality any more than they can make decisions about anything else.
No asshole. You get everything wrong, because you can't think beyond your very limited training. You think you are absolutely right, and that makes you come across as hateful. We know better than you.
Secondly, phobe means hate. We don't hate god. We hate people who try to force god upon us. We ignore god. We don't hate conservatives if they keep to themselves. We laugh at them when they are wrong, which happens on a continuous basis since they are also stupid. We just hate those who try to force their religion upon us with legislation, like gay marriage bans.
You should have figured that out by now. That says nothing good about your intellect.
Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins today condemned the vote of the Vermont State Legislature to overturn the Governor’s veto on same-sex “marriage” as well as the vote by the District of Columbia City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 50 states.
“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,” said Perkins.
“The vote today by the D.C. City Council was a direct affront to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.
Isn't it wonderful!
Nominal Egg, divorce taking time means what? How much time? That all depends on how well it is planned for and the exact legal instrument you used to execute it. You also wrote, "There should be no rights and/or privileges that can only be attained through marriage," which implies that marriage is a very valuable thing to have currently, and that is exactly why it is being fought for by LGBT people. If the benefits of marriage were to be severed from the institution, marriage would lose most of its value. In fact, it would still have value but only as much as same-sex marriages do right now between people living in states where opposite-sex marriages are the only thing recognized.
I don't speak Latin
Let me educate you with some things you won't find on most translation sites.
Natus ab asino es. Cur tu pedicatores times? Times te delectans eos? Ita uero, sane est. Uelim tibi orem claudare, NUNC! Abi, si tam merdum dicis! Caudex! Canum irruma.
Deus tuus flocci non facit, si existat. Sci! Appari cerebrum!
If anyone knows Latin, feel free to correct me.
In between insulting people, derender was blithering about the Bible and Genesis and the Fall a good deal in the Iowa thread (e.g., #419, #447, #465, #483, #487, #491). For someone who takes the Christian Bible literally, derender shows a shameful lack of respect for God's creations. He seems to really get off on killing them.
I chose to be stright when i was born like everbody else.
Just about the only choice a newborn makes is if to suck on that they can get their mouth.
Derender, if your research leads you to declaring that Charles Darwin owned slaves, you are not doing your research right.
Who know that The Homosexual Mafia was powerful enough to bully the APA back in the early seventies? Pull that out of the same place you got Darwin's slaves.
"I chose to be stright when i was born like everbody else. Ask the American Psychological Association about homosexuality and WHO has been bullying them to chnage their minds about thye causes of it. You may want to research that."
I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you're born straight, you can be born gay. Otherwise you either choose to be straight or gay.
What does the American Psychological Association say about homosexuality?
Huh, imagine that. Maybe you should follow your own advice?
"Homosexuality is psychological and is most often derived from an abusive childhood or a childhood where only one parent was present or the child was severely neglected. The first seven year of a child's life is the most crucial years. It defines a the beginning of their personalities and traits even though these traits may tend to vary and change over time as the person is subjected to various environments. I urge you to do a study or ask the APA about this isue. Maybe an unbullied doctor can tell you the truth."
WRONG! And I know a few doctors. Try again.
"Can you imagine how messed up a child will be with two "parents" of the same gender? Talk about a psychology lesson!"
Really? I know a couple of them and they seem perfectly normal to me. They're pretty progressive though! Maybe that's what you mean by wrong?
"All of you want to call me a bigot, but none of you have the guts to find something out for yourself besides what some leftist on Media Matters keeps spewing forth.
If I am a homophbe, then it means that the person who called me this must be a Godophobe or Conservaphobe. Right?"
Oh yawn. Stop crying like a little girl and back up your claims for once!
Jadehawk: why exactly SHOULD other people learn another language, but not you?
---
I have no problem with other people learnimng another language. You can learn them all as far as I am concerned, but I don't plan to use any of them except English myself. I did tak a beginners course on Frech when i was in high school, but only becuase I wished not to take another higher math. I have forgotten it all now. That was too long ago. Why should I learn another language if I an not going to live in another country that the language belongs to? If you wish to move to china, learn Chinese. If you wish to move to iran, learn Persian or Arabic, if you want to move to America, learn English.
FFS, it never ceases to amaze me how, whenever the issue of gay marriages comes up, anywhere, you'll always get people trotting out the "oh but what next" arguments. You know, now all the polygamists will want to get their marriages recognised and people will want to marry their dogs, cats and hamsters.
Will you all just FUCK OFF with that.
Sorry, it's late here in Ireland, and I'm worn out from arguing this issue with a fundie, in the comment thread on his feckin blog.
I'd put money on the likelihood he masturbates furiously while lighting fires, too.
Oh, Derender, you know about the psychology of homosexuality?
I'm trying to write a paper on that, actually. Could you give me some good studies? Most of the ones I've found so far have been rather inconclusive and, well, the language they used would be far above the calibur you've shown.
Seriously, any good studies about gender and/or sexual orientation to which you could direct me would be great.
Deranged:"I chose to be stright when i was born like everbody else. Ask the American Psychological Association about homosexuality and WHO has been bullying them to chnage their minds about thye causes of it. You may want to research that. Homosexuality is psychological and is most often derived from an abusive childhood or a childhood where only one parent was present or the child was severely neglected. The first seven year of a child's life is the most crucial years. It defines a the beginning of their personalities and traits even though these traits may tend to vary and change over time as the person is subjected to various environments. I urge you to do a study or ask the APA about this isue. Maybe an unbullied doctor can tell you the truth.
Can you imagine how messed up a child will be with two "parents" of the same gender? Talk about a psychology lesson!
All of you want to call me a bigot, but none of you have the guts to find something out for yourself besides what some leftist on Media Matters keeps spewing forth.
If I am a homophbe, then it means that the person who called me this must be a Godophobe or Conservaphobe. Right?
"
Okay. You CHOSE to be straight when you were born? Because infants make so many life changing decisions right out of the womb.
If homosexuality is most often caused by having a family situation you do not consider to be "normal", why is it that most of the GLBT people I've ever known are almost ALWAYS the product of a "standard, religious, nuclear family"? Why is it that I managed to turn out a straight woman, when I was raised by a bisexual woman and taught from a very early age that homosexual relationships were perfectly acceptable, just not common?
Actually, please DON'T answer that. I already know the answers to those questions and am only posing them to mess with your world view just a little.
oh, about a million things could be stopping it: her husband is an asswipe and won't sign the papers; she has a medical condition, is on the husband's insurance (because actually he's a really nice guy), and she wouldn't be able to get insured if she lost that insurance; whatever;
point is, it shouldn't MATTER, those benefits should be accessible to any configuration of "significant other"s whenever they want it, without penalty, without excessive legal hurdles.
Posted by: derender | April 7, 2009
Jadehawk: why exactly SHOULD other people learn another language, but not you?
You stupid shit stain on the panties of life, she speaks at least three that I know of. I could be wrong about this but English is her third language and she uses it much better than you.
Oh, and..
Manus turbare in interretiis desiste! Tuus caecus facit, scis?
PZ:
I lk th wy y hd my pst bt th Amrcn Psychlgcl Assctn's ssssmnt f hmsxlty. Cr t xpln t yr fllws why y hd t? Is thr smthng t th APA's rgmnt tht y cnnt dsprv? Tht's ntrstng. I thnk I brk thrgh.
[No, you stupid git -- you're getting a warning that you are close to being banned. "Stupidity" is one of the criteria, and you're meeting it. --pzm]
except that English isn't the official language of the U.S.A.. if people want to have spanish-only communities, or russian-only communities, or vietnamese-only communities, the have the legal right to do so. you have nothing to stand on to force them to learn YOUR preferred language.
Derender, if you have to ask way you should learn another language, you need to quit being stupid and look around you. We have a world economy. We deal with countries and people who don't speak English. If you are trying to do business with someone, it is much easier if you all can communicate. And that may require you to know a second language.
Oh the flaws in my argument...
I'm from Georgia if that gives anyone an idea about how common gay/lesbian couples are around here, and why all the GLBT people I know are from such a family as I mentioned above. My little town in surprisingly progressive for the deep south though. I'm trying to determine if the weather here is worth it for me to stay though...
GMcs:
Cm gn?
sng, I think you're misunderstanding an important point. When you're already in the hospital, it's too late to designate who has visitation rights. If you're well enough to talk about who you'd like to see, it's not really an issue. But if you're in a coma or some other critical situation, all the hospital can do is look at who has the legal right to visit you and/or make decisions about your care. That's one of the rights that gay people have been denied. And practically speaking, the hospital just wants one person to make decisions when the patient is unable to.
I just find this discussion incredibly naive--it seems to revolve around the word "married." What if we just call them all "civil unions"? If you want the same rights as married people, you'd have to register your relationship in some way, whatever you call it. I don't understand why Marcus doesn't get this!
Do I sympathize with him because he's dating a married woman? Not particularly. I have no idea why Marcus's girlfriend can't get a divorce. It's none of my business. But how can he expect the state to recognize his relationship with her when it's already recognized the husband's? He hasn't said that he wants to enter a legal relationship with both of them.
I don't care at all about poly-marriage, but the states aren't going to endorse it any time soon. Dissolutions alone would be nightmares.
Ctk:
Why s t tht I mngd t trn t strght wmn, whn I ws rsd by bsxl wmn nd tght frm vry rly g tht hmsxl rltnshps wr prfctly ccptbl, jst nt cmmn?
Pls s th P wbst.
"Please see the APA website."
We did, you're wrong. Get over it.
Justin:
Good job undermining the civil rights movements and women's suffrage
Actually, the womens' suffrage movement had deep debates over the question of whether to go for universal civil rights or simply women's suffrage - and they decided that, as a matter of practical strategy, they had a very small chance of accomplishing both and stuck to what they thought they could do.
With regard to the rest - your answers to my questions - at the point where you said that the state has an interest in marriage, you lose me. When the state takes an interest in marriage it creates a situation where - no matter how you slice it - there will be unfairness. That's why the whole same-sex marriage question is an issue, at all. If it were merely a quaint religious custom with no economic teeth, it'd be irrelevant to anyone outside of that religion and we could safely ignore it.
The state's recognition of "marriage" as having legal weight brings you crazy things like the US Army taking on the mormons because of "bigamy" - and it sets the state up for massive headaches like having to deal with islamic "marriage" laws, etc, etc. It's better in every sense of the world - more efficient, simpler, and moral - to simply give marriage exactly the same legal weight as race, creed, or sexual preference. i.e.: none.
I'm also disappointed at your response when I explained why I am legally prevented from getting married. Whether I want to or not is irrelevant - but saying there are legal options I can pursue is exactly the same as telling a same-sex couple "there are legal options you can pursue", too. I know you can't see that but I'm guessing you've got a dog in this fight, or something - or else you and I simply do not have a shared notion of "equality."
It's unfortunate that I even mentioned anything about my specific case. I could just as easily have said "unwed mothers." Indeed, "unwed mothers" suffer economic disadvantage as well - and if you think that it's not a result of left-over religious morality (like same-sex marriages) you and I are so far apart in our realities that I'll probably conclude that you're a figment of my imagination. :) Indeed, even the expression "unwed mothers" is a term of opprobrium; and it's based on the same abrahamic religiousity that brought you the anti same-sex idiots.
That's why I'm finding this discussion to be extremely contradictory - we have supposed rationalists sticking up for a religious doctrine that is enshrined by long tradition at the core of a supposedly secular society. The cognitive dissonance, it jangles my nerves!
aratina cage @267 said: Divorce is only difficult if you make it difficult. If you treat it as a mutually agreeable legal termination, nothing at all is difficult about it. The problem is that it is usually a one-sided or uncooperative ordeal.
Or the state/country/whatever you live in makes it difficult to obtain a divorce. Even the best goodwill between the exes will not necessarily make for a smooth, easy divorce.
I said:
Where did you get your information? I've known many psychology professors who, under no duress, have said that sexual orientation is not a choice. Also, if you have any interesting scientific studies, I would love to see them, as I could use them right now.
And to sum up my Latin:
DERENDER EUNT DOMUS
Can anyone translate this for me, class?
Derender:
What the APA has to say about Homosexuality
You've been given this link already. Please, do go check it out. It has a pile of amazing information that might assist you in pulling your head out from your ass.
I know I was born straight. I know some of my best friends were born gay, and trust me, they know about how it is to be gay in the deep south. (They're not all initially from my nice little town) They wouldn't CHOOSE their life. Especially not living down here.
GMacs, you're no Catullus, but you'd for sure at least give any 12th century clerical student a run for his money. ;)
The village idiot wrong again. Who would have thunk it?
cachinno
Now the deluded stupid troll is accusing our gracious host of censuring. What great bit of fact do you claim is missing. Is he also censuring the facts about Darwin's slaves?
"That's why I'm finding this discussion to be extremely contradictory - we have supposed rationalists sticking up for a religious doctrine that is enshrined by long tradition at the core of a supposedly secular society. The cognitive dissonance, it jangles my nerves!"
I'm not saying anything other than let's agree to disagree. But I will point out that society has NEVER been a fully rational entity.
To argue about how we can change society from a fully rational standpoint is futile.
We have a world economy. We deal with countries and people who don't speak English. If you are trying to do business with someone, it is much easier if you all can communicate. And that may require you to know a second language
Indeed. derender, if you need help learning a second language, I can point you to some useful resources. It's hard work, but unbelievably rewarding.
"Do you speak English? Or are you a latinese person?"
Okay, did derrière-ender really just act out the punchline of the bad joke that "latin is what they speak in latin america"?
derender,
I'd give French another try. English doesn't seem to be working out that well for you.
I know your post was aimed at the village idiot, but if you wouldn't mind sharing said sources, I've been trying to decide between French and German, and want to see if you know about some places I don't.
Bah-bye baby bah-bye. You will not be missed.
Several people made helpful comments like this:
I have no idea why Marcus's girlfriend can't get a divorce. It's none of my business.
or
the person he wants to couple with could divorce the person she is married to now and then marry Marcus. (What is stopping that? The reaction of society?)
Again, it was an example that I introduced to illustrate a real-world case of legal and economic inequality resulting from the government's regulation of "marriage." Please don't dwell too closely on the example, lest you miss the point.
Guess what? Divorces cost money!! In some jurisdictions, the consequences of divorce amount to legal punishment for one or both parties. Divorces bring other economic inequlities afterward. I've done it twice; I know of what whereof I speak.
So your response when someone points out economic unfairness is to blow them off by saying "well, you can always do X, Y, Z" as if it's that simple and X, Y, and Z do not also have costs?
I'm guessing that when your same-sex friends complained that they couldn't get married you told them "Why don't you just have a contractual relationship? Set up a joint trust. whatever. You have lots of options!"
Sure, there are options. But the easiest option for everyone is to be fair. Equal and impartial under the law, and it doesn't matter how many wives or husbands you have (or even if you marry your little dog) because it means as much as eating those little crackers the catholics enjoy so much.
As soon as the state regulates marriage, it bought into all the religious braindamage associated with it - to say nothing of the gargantuan expenses of fighting the issue through the courts over and over again. How much do you think our society has spent on this oh-so-important checkbox item?
Thank you, Octopod.
I only took 3 years, and I had to write without subjunctives, cause I can't remember them. And I'm glad I made you laugh, Jadehawk. My Latin teacher was a bleeding-heart liberal like me, so I think she would have appreciated this.
Aaah, Catullus... Te pedicabo, et irrumabo... or something like that.
aratina,
I only mentioned that divorce takes time as a response to your assertion that Marcus's g/f could just get divorced, and then she would be free to marry him. Divorce is not an instant event. It's not just pay a fee, sign a form, and you're done. It takes time. That time varies, as you said. Maybe the g/f is in the process, maybe she's not, it's not relevant. Their specific case has no bearing on whether married couples should enjoy rights that are unavailable to others.
The recent victories in Vermont and Iowa are awesome things. I do think marriage is wonderful as an affirmation of the love, trust, and commitment of two people to support each other for the rest of their lives. No two consenting adults should be excluded for any reason.
I just don't understand how it's valid for married couples to have more health care rights or lower income tax rates than single people. What's the justification for that?
Justin writes:
I'm not saying anything other than let's agree to disagree. But I will point out that society has NEVER been a fully rational entity.
To argue about how we can change society from a fully rational standpoint is futile.
It appears that you are agreeing that the there is injustice. But that you're either lazy or a moral coward and consequently you're comfortable with the futility of trying to build a fair society.
I can buy that.
Derender obviously didn't follow the link to the APA website where he claims so much of the evidence he relies on is at.
We read it derender, feel free to share where you're getting your information though, but I know it isn't the APA.
Well I'm off for the night. One last thing...
*headdesk*
"Are you of all people calling science wrong? You are telling me that you do not believe what the APA says about homosexuality and the fact that they admit to being pressured by radical groups to suppress data?'
We DO believe what the APA says about homosexuality! I'll quote it AGAIN for you!
"I thought you were a person of science. Why do you dowbt the science of pshychology? You can dispute me, but you cannot dipute APA findings and studies."
What's the weather like on planet imbecile?
That is why I said strategic straight couplings and why I argue that the legal hurdles are only excessive if you make them excessive--so don't. Straight people can go a long way to devaluing opposite-sex marriage by taking advantage of the marriage/divorce system already in place if they really want to, and many already do it without consciously acknowledging that (based on divorce rates). If enough straight people do it, change will occur.
Hey deranged derender, you look cute.
Interesting everyone here tonight is so hung up on linguistics. Well, when you have a troll with so poor grasp of the language he claims is his only one, that he thinks "dare" and "choose" are the same.
Speaking of Latin, deranged, there is another phrase you probably aren't familiar with: "E Pluribus Unum". It means "out of many, one". And you would find it on bank notes until replaced by "In God We Trust" in the 1950's, the time that according to you, the liberals rewrote the history. You are making my day with your persecution complex and conspiracy theories.
Seems you have experimented with arson too. It's real bad for now you can only vent your anger on the internet, and then it gets mangled. Must hurt, I know.
Why do you dowbt the science of pshychology?
Because it is a soft science. I am a psychology student. The only thing concerning sexual orientation about which psychologists are certain is that it is not a conscious choice...ever.
"It appears that you are agreeing that the there is injustice. But that you're either lazy or a moral coward and consequently you're comfortable with the futility of trying to build a fair society."
Spare me your righteous indignation. I have more important things to worry about, like people starving in Africa or preventing the spread of HIV and stopping climate change to worry about YOU and your whining about tax brackets.
Here, I have a ladder if you want to get over yourself.
I'm not sure what you mean here
Angry Justin = bad grammar.
I have little patience for people mewling about how tough their problems are when we have to deal with far larger ones than whether we keep marriage as a legal institution.
And considering that I don't even live in the States, it's fairly rich to accuse me of not caring when I'm in no position to affect change whatsoever.
You know deranged, I don't "dowbt" the findings of "psyhciatry", they removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders related to sex decades ago.
DAMN! This is good news, it seems a rash of tolerance is breaking out across the USA and sensible legislation follows. Change we can believe in? Fuck yeah!
Go Vermont (always one of my favourite states anyway).
Louis
Marcus, how many times do you need to read this? The state, community, tribe, realm, or fiefdom has always had a stake in marriage. Virtually every society or culture has a system for formalizing marriage-like relationships, because there's a need to determine what rights and responsibilities people have regarding property and children, among other things. These marriages certainly don't all look like the current "Western" model.
It's a religious concept only in the sense that "religion" and "state" have so very often been indistinguishable, but that's not the case in the U.S. The church has no power over marriages, the states do. And that's reasonable, because the state is the system we've set up to enforce our rights and responsibilities.
"I keep trying to submit you some links, but a screen about "comments waiting for blog owner approval" keeps popping up."
This ought to be fun... If true...
derender, try putting in less than two links.
or try taking off the "http://" part of the link. then you can put in as many as you want.
There is a reason. You have been deliberately stupid and preachy. That offends the exalted PZ Myers, who runs this blog. You need to lose the attitude that you know everything, and are here to preach to us. If you want a dialog, be ready for you to learn. If you don't want to learn, cease posting here. Get the picture?
Aww, derender's in a tizzy because he and his ilk are slowly losing the power and privilege they've enjoyed for the last few decades and assumed would last forever.
It must suck to be him.
derender:
I can't speak for NoR, so I will speak for myself. I do not believe YOU. I think YOU are lying, or deluded, or - at best - misinformed. Produce some evidence to back your claims, please, or the conclusion will be that you're one, or all, of the above.
On the other hand, if by "radical groups" you mean organizations like Focus on the Family then yes, I would be inclined to believe you - but even then, I would like to see some verifiable statement from the APA to support the claim.
A part of the justification could be the institutional patriarchy that exists in the U.S. where women are even still being forced through a filter that says men do work and women do family causing married men to feel especially burdened over their single counterparts. Also, another part (until recently) of the justification could be the argument that marriage is fundamentally a reproductive sanction, which would lead lawmakers to expect married couples to have children. From those premises, it would only seem like a fair thing to do for married couples.But still, the same-sex couples in Iowa and Vermont do not get any of the federal benefits that opposite-sex couples receive, so the whole "marriage is fair/unfair to singles" argument brought on by straight people is moot for almost every LGT person and many bisexuals.
derender:
I think NoR is pulling your leg. It's not just you.
If you limit the number of links per comment to two, your comments won't keep getting caught in the moderation filter.
"Eminent psychiatrist says homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050110.html"
That's it? A short news clip from Lifesite!? Where's the studies? What about the data? All this has is some vague reference to some "studies" done in some countries.
A for effort D- for content.
Hey deranged, here's another word in the language you claim is your only one: "weasel".
For example, when you try to distort my comment about people "daring" to have a lifestyle different from yours, then I call you for being ignorant, untruthful, or both, and then you completely ignore that and go on to talk about something else, that makes you a weasel. There, you have you vocab for the day.
Derender, I read mystery books by Jonathon Kellerman. He is a PhD child psychologist, and frequently cites the APA position and/or literature in his books. They make it plain that psychology has destigmatized homosexuality for years, especially since one of his main protagonists is gay. Recent studies have shown that homosexuality may be tied to developmental timing issues in the womb. Another lie for the liar.
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.
DRAPETOMANIA IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.
YOU LIBERALS NEED TO ADMIT IT.
@derender #333
Fucking hell! You can't come up with something better than a non-thinking cat-lick psychiatrist to support your assertion? He's as deluded as you are.
"American Psychological Association Pressured to Ban Reparative Therapy
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071103.html"
As well they should. From the APA website;
Why continue an invalid therapy?
P.S. STOP QUOTING LIFESITE.
"Eminent psychiatrist" is probably Catholic, and is an ass.
Derender, I won't go near a link you post. You are not trustworthy. But if that link says what you say, the APA is correct in that there are no reputable studies showing that sexual orientation is subject to long term "correction". Ergo, it should not be done, since the treatment itself psychologically damaging.
Reparative therapy? Oh, wonderful.
I'm sure the APA was also "pressured by radical groups" to discourage the beating of children with spiked boards as a disciplinary method. It's a conspiracy!
Look, Derender - you will ALWAYS be able to find ONE opinion that matches your one. One researcher is not "the APA". Surely you can see the difference. You haven't brought much to the table, here.
But I will follow your links, and see where they lead.
People don't generally enter into marriage with a plan to get divorced in a certain amount of time, but nothing is stopping them from doing that and setting it up so that it is little more than a signature. How much simpler could it be? If you don't treat marriage as something sacred, it isn't. That's why I brought up Britney Spears who got married and divorced within a few days, of course she had no plans but the legal instrument she used was quick and carried almost no legal hurdles.
I can't remember where I read this quote, it's been years since I read anything regarding "reparative therapy". But a sex researcher I read said the reason the endeavor is doomed to failure is because- "It is not possible for people to want what they do not want, or to not want what they do want".
The idea is so basic, maybe even derender can understand it.
And I'll believe a "reparative therapist" is unbiased and without hidden agenda when he/she/ proves it by making a heterosexual into a homosexual.
Hurray! There is one psychiatrist(?) in the world who's as deranged as the deranged weasel himself!
As an aside, how does this "reparative" therapy work? Do they assess the results by showing the "patient" nude pictures of men and women and measure their erections? I would recommend that for Ted Haggard and Larry Craig.
Yeah it works. The gay marries the lesbian frequently. Now with proprieties taken care of, guess what really happens?
&gidFirst Amendment? What's that?
(via Facebook)
Derender, would you agree with the following statement?
"As Americans, we are all free to choose our religions (or none)."
Since you are a patriot and no doubt familiar with the intent of our "Founding Fathers" to create a secular government, I'm sure you'll say yes.
Your religion is a choice, unlike race, but your right to it is still protected by the Constitution. Discrimination against gay people because it's a "choice" is therefore irrelevant. The entire issue is a red herring.
The real question is whether we want to give the state the power to regulate our deeply personal lives. For most people, the answer is No. And the legal trend for years reflects that. It's actually an extremely conservative position!
Whether you personally find homosexuality abhorrent is completely irrelevant. You don't get to impose your moral views on others. That you think we're all depraved is also irrelevant. We think that you are irrational and ill-informed. Why should we care for your opinion any more than you care for ours?
And there's no use citing various biblical threats. Most of us don't believe that the bible is true. Just as you disregard the sacred texts of other religions, we disregard yours. Produce some proof of the bible's accuracy, and we'll consider it.
Upon review of the thead, I think I'm getting the picture here. Derender is one of those concrete-headed ideologues who rejects any and all evidence that contradicts the misbegotten ideas to which he clings, as the result of dishonesty, incompetence or coercive conspiracy. Any attempts at reasonable discussion with him/her will be a waste of time.
Am I wrong?
Nope.
ah. now i see. you're talking about those marriages in which all that bonus stuff is actually extra. well, of course it's easy in such a case, but in such a case the benefits are obviously not the main point to begin with.
for example, my marriage outlived the relationship it was based on by a year an a half (before filing), because the alternative would be getting kicked out of the country. after that, the divorce was near instantaneous and needed only a signature. and it's not like this is a rare exception. matter of factly, I'm not sure there's a single married couple in my current social circle that's not married just for the benefits. sometimes to people they don't give a flying fuck about (there's a military base in town. great health-benefits). that's a pretty stupid arrangement, don't you think?
(Ick. What an ugly, ugly sentence I just posted. Sigh. Where's that "edit" button?!?)
also, i didn't mean "excessive legal hurdles" of divorce, I meant "excessive legal hurdles" to getting certain benefits without being married to someone.
Kseniya, you pretty much have defanged's number. Plus he is pretty damned whiny.
Not to keep harping on this, but....
People don't generally enter into marriage with a plan to get divorced in a certain amount of time, but nothing is stopping them from doing that and setting it up so that it is little more than a signature.
Yes, something is (or at least, can be). The state can make it extremely difficult or impossible to get divorced, even if the couple involved is in perfect agreement about it. The state can do this in a number of ways, such as requiring certain difficult conditions to be met before the couple can file for divorce (residency qualifications, living separate and apart for a certain length of time, or one partner proving physical or mental cruelty, for example), by not permitting or recognizing divorce at all, or by not recognizing the marriage. (Same-sex couples who live in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage can't get divorces.)
Oh, sure, laugh at the guy. He's just trying to warn you. And he knows, man, he knows. The Gay Mafia are no laughingg matter, I can tell you...
You just don't cross 'em. You do, and they will catch up to you. And then you come home to discover your place has been made over by a gang of outlaw interior designers in this fabulously tacky late 60s theme... Fluorescent pink shag carpets and black 'n white geometric print overstuffed furniture...
You keep that in mind, peeps. These people have swatches. And they know how to use them.
#358
It's true...the gay banditos.
How much money? I know people who divorced with very little money, although I have yet to see a mutually planned divorce. You aren't understanding my point, you could marry your love with a mutually agreed on plan for divorce, remarriage, divorce, remarriage at future points. In between you would be single or married to someone else. Why can't you take advantage of the system?
And your response to a victory for people who have been treated as less than human is to blow them off by saying "piss on that valuable privilege you just won"?
You guessed wrong. For one thing, I value marriage, unlike you. But that very statement is exactly the kind of bullshit that conservative Christians say, and I don't take that characterization lightly.
Then treat opposite-sex marriage with the contempt you think it deserves by playing the system for all its worth.
I don't buy into the whole "state regulating marriage is bad" argument. It looks like you have four points of contention: 1) marriage is a contemptible institution, 2) marriage should not be regulated by the state, 3) the recipients of the benefits of marriage should be determined from a strictly private standpoint, and 4) you should be able to give the same benefit of marriage to multiple people--a one to many relationship. That seems like a real mess of a problem to synthesize. I've already given you an idea of how to get point 4 by strategic marriage/divorce.
Ah, what hallucinogen have you been taking? The bible is a worthless piece of fiction. If you actually read it for total comprehension, you would know that.
Oh, and if you think we haven't read it, one of the primary means of starting to become an atheist is to actually read the bible cover to cover. Then one can see it for the piece of insanity it is.
Then you should be able to point to where in the Constitution religion was made part of the government. Show us where god and Jebus and Allah and Odin and Huitzilopochtli are mentioned in the Constitution.
Marcus Ranum, me@360 was meant to be a response to you for what I assume was a response to me.
I see. I would call them impossible hurdles. For instance, a non-married opposite-sex couple could not sponsor their foreign partner unless they married. Still, at least there is one option for straights.
We have, and you are wrong again. Derender, let me give you a clue. Everything you say is wrong, so don't say it. Save yourself the embarrassment.
Then religion is not part of the government. Jayzus, derender, you are a fucking dumbshit if you think religion is part of the government. How does a shitstain on the panties of life like you manage to breathe and walk at the same time?
that's the point. and soon in the future it will be possible (hopefully) for gay couples too. which would leave any number of other configurations out. of course we could fight for the rights of each group separately, and if that's the only way to do it, so be it. however, decoupling the ability to take on responsibility for certain aspects of another person's life from marriage (which is an immense package deal) would, in my mind, be the more sensible approach.
Oh boy, we have a true ignoramus of history. Derender, as I said, everything you say is wrong, so the smartest thing you can do is to shut up.
derender, you deluded motherfucking asshole, do you actually think that a rightwing godbot like DeMar is going to produce convincing evidence to a bunch of atheists that separation of church and state isn't a fact of life? Even an asswipe like you can't be that fucking stupid.
No, I take that back. An asswipe like you can be that fucking stupid.
Hi deranged, what I am claiming (and you prove me right every time) is that your English sucks.
By the way I don't like it when you lose the argument and try to change the subject. We moved from the doom and gloom of recognition of gay rights to "myth" of church/state separation, to ACORN. You know what such a person is called?
A weasel.
And I'm not interested in links you leave to fundagelical sites and right wing blogs, thank you.
PS: Of course evolution is true. You want the "missing link": look in the mirror.
Yawn, if you did the paper it is full of flaws. Get the picture. You have no logic and reason like Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Quit trying to bullshit us. We don't like that.
Your thinking is equally crappy and you don't care about that either.
Looks like PZ decided that deranged asshole needed a long time-out.
Hey deranged, it is more than your grammar that is crappy.
Man, I thought it was just your language. Your history sucks even more.
It was Jefferson that coined the phrase "wall of separation". You can spin it as you please, but the fact stands.
Ever heard of Jefferson's bible? You can go on and on about how religious you think he was, but he took out all the miracles, including the resurrection. His "Christianity" was obviously of a different flavor than yours.
How about "In God We Trust"(on print money)and "One Nation Under God"? Well, both were added in 1950's, when the influence of liberals was on the rise and they were rewriting history (according to you).
Not that I expect any honesty from you. You always run away and change the subject when you lose an argument and change the subject.
derender is not only stupider than we suppose; he's stupider than we can suppose.
Did Jefferson believe in a Supreme Being? Yes. But there was no scientific evidence for the age of the universe or the fact of evolution when he was alive. As a great intellectual he would undoubtedly have been fascinated.
Did Jefferson believe in the divinity of Jesus? Most definitely not.
It's completely disingenuous to say that the founders intended to protect religion from the government without also understanding the corresponding protection of the government from religious interference. They knew well the destruction and chaos that religious wars had inflicted on Europe, and they dearly wanted to avoid it.
That people like you continue to inflict your own brand of religious fervor, intolerance, and self-righteousness on others is simply evidence that you possess none of the traditionally "Christian" virtues.
Tis Himself,
What did I do to crinkle your pink panties? Foulmhouth hethen.
----
Uninsghtful ape,
I looked in the mirror. I saw me. If you looked into one all you would see is a silly gorilla pretending to be a man. Go eat your bananas now, it's almost time to get back in the cage. The zoo will be closing soon.
I cannot help it if you people beleive in revisionist historians rather than real ones. You are wrong about Jefferson. And Washington. And Franklin. and the rest.
Before they start the avalanche of states granting gay marriage, they better stop the gender bigotry against fathers in the family courts across this country. Divorced fathers are routinely denied child custody in 90% of all custody cases (sole and joint custody where mother is primary caretaker). Where can you get those kind of odds? Not in Vegas, Atlantic City, or the lottery. It's a financial windfall for women and attorneys. And, it's 98% of divorced men go to jail if they can't meet their child support or alimony obligations. Not only is this gender discrimination, it's declaring war on fathers and the nuclear family. When men start realizing that the US Constitution is a "dead letter" all bets will be off and there will be more Pittsburghs and Binghamton, NY cases across the country, with lawyers and judges being the fodder for dads' cannons.
Until you can acknowledge you are wrong, you should be plonked. Get it? YOU ARE WRONG!
The gay homodoxy is a nightmare for the medical industry. Watch as SIDS and AIDS skyrockets. Watch as gays try to recruit your children in the public schools.
The following written by “gay revolutionary” Mark Swift and printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of Gay Community News. These excerpts are reprinted from the Congressional Record:
“We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable.... We shall raise vast, private armies...to defeat you. The family unit....will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory....All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry
we can take a look at some important short facts leading up to the formation of America itself. One such fact is that most of the states that existed (before the United States was formed) were separate and had their own constitutions already, most of which acknowledged God for their survival and existence1. Another fact is that 27 of our 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees
For a full understanding of what Mr. Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists, here is the whole letter which is also available at the Library of Congress website, (www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Generally, Jefferson was trying to protect religion from the government, not the opposite, as we might hear today. Basically, the First Amendment meant that the Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination3. Numerous denominations were present before, during, and after the actual constitution was created and signed. These denominations included Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Quaker, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Methodist4.
Since there were many Christian denominations present already in the surrounding states, the new United States, under the first Amendment was prohibited from establishing one of these Christian denominations from being the national state denomination. Keep in mind that Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions (except for native American religions) were not present in the states at this time, so the first Amendment could not have possibly been talking about one religion being established over another. It had to mean one Christian denomination was not to be established as the national belief. Jefferson clarified this in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Some people call Jefferson agnostic, deist, and other such things, but those ideas can be countered simply by knowing history. When Thomas Jefferson was the governor of Virginia, he issued some proclamations that may disappoint those who call him agnostic. For one thing, he issued days of “public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to the Almighty God” and even went as far as signing an appropriation of funds to be paid to the Kaskakia Indians, who called for the U.S. to build them a Roman Catholic Church5. Jefferson also proposed, along with Benjamin Franklin, that the final design for the national seal should include the Biblical image of Pharoah’s army being destroyed as it passed through the Red Sea (see Exodus chapter 14). If Jefferson really did believe that there was a wall of separation between church and state and that religion should not be a part of public (particularly government officials) life, then why did he do these and many other similar things and contradict his own letter to the Danbury Baptists?
Jefferson did, in a way, contradict his own words about separation of church and state and actually clarified things in his second Inaugural address in 1805, three years after his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The words of this address are ignored by those who, today, still believe in a “separation of church and state” through Jefferson’s letter. In his second Inaugural address, he states6:
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. Many contemporary writers attempt to read back into the past a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state which, in fact, never has existed in the United States”.
These words spoken by Jefferson should proof enough about the truth of separation of church and state. If that is not enough to convince oneself about this issue, then another document called the Northwest Ordinance should be thoroughly researched. Among one thing mentioned in this ordinance is religious freedom.
One thing that is hardly ever mentioned is the fact that Thomas Jefferson was raised an Anglican, but later developed a distrust in organized religion7. As a Virginia lawmaker Jefferson was responsible for assuring religious freedom and tolerance while at the same time, abolishing special privileges of the Anglican denomination in Virginia and even eventually took Anglican clergymen off of the state payroll and exempted Virginian from paying taxes to support the Anglican Church. Jefferson never once stated that religious belief and worship had to be separated from public life. He only separated church and state issues to protect religious freedom from the state. Ultimately if the church (of any denomination) was receiving taxpayer money from the state, then that church and it’s religious views could have been virtually owned and operated by state law and that’s the very thing that Jefferson was trying to avoid. He wanted church and state to remain separate in order for the general public to practice religious belief and have religious freedom while keeping the state from interfering in these affairs.
The actually term and modern day meaning of “separation of church and state” actually came from a court case in 1947 called Emerson v Board of Education in which the Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black took Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to the extreme and took it upon himself to inject a “wall” of separation of church and state. In recent years, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist said that Judge Black had ignored history, and the constitutional framers’ intent on religion and the state8. Basically an activist Judge erected the so called “wall of separation” between church and state, not the founding fathers, and not Thomas Jefferson. Neither Jefferson of the original founders of America had ever intended on a wall of separation between religious freedom and public life.
Morphing is crime derender. Bye-Bye.
Dr. Judith Reisman, expert witness before the attorney general’s commission on pornography and veteran researcher has found contrary to the popular view that there is little crossover between homosexuality and pedophilia, she says homosexuals are anxious to recruit young boys--a practice that is becoming easier than to sex education and “diversity programs” in schools that teach children to consider homosexuality as both acceptable and normal.
NO pedophile has the right to seduce or enslave a child for sexual pleasure!
As early as 1997 the International Epidemiological Association concluded that homosexual and bisexual lifestyle expectancy was 8 to 20 years less than all men and if this mortality continues, half of homosexual and bisexual men now age 20 will not reach the age of 65.
According to the highly respected conservative Family Research Council from “sifting of evidence from four separate databases support the conclusion that homosexual activities may shorten the person’s life span by as much as 30%” In addition...”Median age of death for homosexuals was 45, with only 2% surviving past 65 [while the median age of the ‘normal’ population was over 70 with more than 60% living past 65].” Further, “Causes of early death included murder, accidents, and drug abuse, but primarily sexually transmitted diseases [STDs}. Homosexuals were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more likely to commit suicide, 18 times more likely to die in traffic accidents.”
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported:
50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16.
20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10.
NO medical professional can ethically avoid warning our youth of these deadly lifestyle dangers. Medical representatives should be in day care centers and grade schools presenting warnings of these lethal lifestyle choices. This should be a lesson discussed with children at annual physical time.
In 1991 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration enacted rules designed to protect health care personnel from the spread of blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and Hepatitis. Employers were forced, by law, subject to jail and/or fines, to educate their employees to prevent transmission and likely premature death.
Homosexuality is a lie, otherwise homosexuals would not be dying!
Where is OSHA in the classroom and day care? Don’t our children count? Are they old enough to know about condom use but not pain, suffering and premature death? Or are pedophiles “feelings” and behavior acceptance more important than the health of our youth to our society?
NO elected or appointed legislative body has the right to enact laws that provide those performing deviant sex practices the status of a special minority class, with special insurance and workplace benefits. What will be the next special class, those who have sex with animals or the dead. Where will it end? It’s the responsibility of your congressmen to keep laws for family protection (such as male/female marriage) and get tougher with new legislation against the threats to child welfare by the homosexual lethal lifestyle.
When the homosexual lifestyle is taught, it must be the whole truth with explanation and pictures of diseases, suffering and premature death of those who go there. Half truths, obfuscation and cover-up are lies as we see in Suffer the Children. [click here for more on the video Suffer the Children]
NO teacher or instructor in day care or grade school, in a position of parental trust, has the right to introduce propaganda or homosexual tolerance or acceptance without the full picture of this lethal lifestyle and obviously not without the parents knowledge.
The Family Policy Network produced a list of diseases contacted and spread through the lethal lifestyle of homosexuality. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Pubic lice
2.Scabies (mites)
3.Fungal infections
4.Oral gonorrhea
5.Oral lesions from herpes, HPV (warts), chancroid, lymhogranuloma venereum, or granuloma inguinale.
6.Nongonolococcal pharyngitis from chlamydia, other STD’s
7.Syphilis
8.Enteric (intestinal) infections
9.Traumatic proctitis
10.Rectal gonorrhea
11.Anal warts
12.HIV/AIDS*
13.Nonspecific procitis (from chlamydia and other STDs)
14.Anorectal herpes
15.Anorectal syphilis
16.Rectal trichomoniasis
17.Lymphogranuloma venereum
18.Anorectal granuloma inguinale
19.Anorectal chancroid
20.Cytomegalovirus
21.Anorectal candidiasis
22.Physical abrasions
23.Bites
24.Herpes
25.Urethritis from various STDs
26.Nongonococcal urethritis
27.Genital herpes
28.Molluscum contagiosum
29.Genital warts
30.Trichomoniasins
31.Epididymitis and/or proctitis
32.Granuloma inguinale
33.Chancroid
34.Shigellosis
35.Campylobacter fetus (bacteria)
36.Enterogenic E. coli bacteria
37.Hepatitis (A, B, and others)
38.Amebiasis
39.Giardiasis
40.Salmonellosis
41.Enterobius vemicularis (parasite)
42.Oral warts
As these diseases become resistant to medication, mutations and permutations occur. To keep the human body fighting to resist the spread of further illness the immune system breaks down and premature death results.
*15,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS alone are reported daily in the world. Will one be a son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter?
Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--NJ & NY Chapters
b_eden@verizon.net
Ok, wtf...
Did the crazy in here just multiply? We have to kill the queen! She lays thousands of eggs!
Yawn, a stupidity show by reactionary jerks. Boring boys.
Because we all know that heterosexuals do not die.
dadzrites,
I suggest you seek psychiatric help,and fast.
It's fun watching the troll high five himself! :)
Wow, it's getting kinda creepy now! That "Dad" guy is quoting bogus statistics, which incidentally don't include the fact that fathers are awarded custody in the overwhelming majority of cases where they request it. Women are awarded custody more often because they want it.
The threats of violence? Signs of mental disturbance and paranoia. Liberals burning books? Just...laughable.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homosexual_a…
looks like the troll DADZRITES knows how to copy and paste
let us know when you learn how to think
last post - shite. Drunk,and stupid. What's not to hate?
Ahhh, the far-left hardliner Brezhnev communist psychopaths just can't stop themselves from the name-calling and denigration; not to mention the defamation and libel.
Vladimir Lenin had a term for you cretins: "Useful idiots".
Sorry evangelista - not you :0
The only person who counts, PZ Myers.
Uh-huh. So says the one who called us far-left hardliner Brezhnev communist psychopaths, and "Useful idiots."
You haven't been taking your meds yet, have you?
DADZRITES, typical of a dishonest asshole, leaves out the first paragraph by Mark Swift.
Also, babies are dying of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome because of homosexuality?
Watch as SIDS and AIDS skyrockets.
As all faggots and dykes know, make a straight kid taste the forbidden fruit, fucking a person of the same sex, a straight person will become forever gay.
Watch as gays try to recruit your children in the public schools.
Also, DADZRITES, where did you get the stat that 98% of men who fail to pay child support end up in jail. I would like to know how my father got so lucky. He never payed a dime of what the court ordered but he never went to jail for non-payment.
Poor DADZRITES, so lacking as a person, he tries to built himself up through complaining about his "lost" rights.
You know the old saying: "Once you go gay; you never stray!"
DADZRITES, why don't you come over to my place and I'll teach you how to stop plagiarizing and convert you to the gay side. Two for one special; tonight only.
Fine I'll leave before I'm arrested by GobDots and mothballs, forced into gay unionism (not marriage)orchestrated by ACORN and backed by the Union boss crimelords.
Go Toyota! (Excpet for the Prius - yuck)
Se ya later. Read mallard Fillmore For me.
Don't lay too many eggs.
Sorry i couldn't say good-bye in latinese, so just plain bye.
If anything I did learn a new term here : "Gob Dots"
The Family Policy Network produced a list of diseases contacted and spread through the lethal lifestyle of homosexuality. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
22.Physical abrasions
23.Bites
Damn you homosexuals!
A shit stain so stupid, he mistypes "godbots" as "Gob Dots" and he thinks that we use the term.
@Guy Incognitowe only bite when you ask (nicely) for it. ;)
*smiles coyly at Janine, Insulting Sinner*shit stain is WAAAAYYYYY to generous. I was thinking crust of herpetic lesion.
"shit stain is WAAAAYYYYY to generous. I was thinking crust of herpetic lesion."
Syphilitic pustule?
So I just submitted a stupid, trivial comment and it got held for moderation! WTF?!
I signed it "Sven DiMilo, drunk," so that may have something to do with it, but still.
WTF?
too many A's and Y's and not enough o's...please don't call the grammar police on me.
Anyone else notice how little coverage of VT override there seems to be on the news? I even watch (tortured myself with) Bill O'Brainless tonight to see the drama. All I got is fake outrage that Obama bowed to the Saudi king.
I think I called him a pile of smegma on one of the threads...
Brownian asks:
Bavarian Illuminatus, your name links to Marcus Ranum's website. I'm confused: is there some sockpuppetry going on here, or a copy and paste error, or something else?
Something else. Sorry - my bad sense of humor. The guy was talking about secret conspiracies and I thought he was an idiot and wanted to poke a bit of fun and messed with the name field on my mockery. I thought it was a little bit funny, at least.
yup. homosexuality gives you salmonella
Is he still in power?!? Oh my!
aratina cage writes:
Why can't you take advantage of the system?
Read carefully: it was just an example. It'll probably cost me about $10,000/year worth of write-offs not to be "married" (and it might cost her about $6,000/year in insurance) but the reason I raised that example was just to show that we're talking about real, and significant inequalities, here.
Your sitting there telling me glibly about how much money I should or shouldn't spend, or what I can just do or not do is a bit insulting given that it's none of your damn business what I do. What I want is equal treatment under the law whether it's same-sex marriages, multi-way marriages, someone marrying their cat, or no marriages at all.
Equal treatment under the law also means not "oh, if you jump through all these hoops that hetero couples and now same-sex couples don't have to jump through, you can get more or less the same thing."
I suspect you'd be reacting quite differently if it was your ox getting gored. I assure you, however, that I would not - because if everyone is equal under the law, the whole topic is moot.
And your response to a victory for people who have been treated as less than human is to blow them off by saying "piss on that valuable privilege you just won"?
You apparently can't read. I initially said "congratulations" and meant it. And I still do. Congratulations, same sex couples! You are now part of the privileged class and have valuable privileges that islamic multi-wife families can't have, mormons can't have, "single moms" can't have. Congratulations, you're now on the side of "unfair" where you can enjoy yourself. You've made it into the club. Yay.
You guessed wrong. For one thing, I value marriage, unlike you.
I value it so much I've done it twice. I'd probably do it again - except that, right now, it'd be illegal. Got that? And don't presume to tell me what to do about it - I'd rather have fair laws than your advice.
But that very statement is exactly the kind of bullshit that conservative Christians say, and I don't take that characterization lightly.
OoooOOoooooooooooo... Because I disagree with you, I must be a conservative Christian??? Is that it? Do you understand that, in this situation, you are aligning yourself closer to religiously inspired favoritism than I am?? If conservative values offend you, try sticking up for a rationalist government in which the trappings of religious "morality" (including making divorce economically punitive as well as enforcing conservative christian values a la "marriage is two partners") are enforced. Who, exactly, is talking bullshit here? Get a mirror.
Then treat opposite-sex marriage with the contempt you think it deserves by playing the system for all its worth.
Don't foist your morals on me. I have no contempt for opposite-sex marriage. I think marriage is just fine. But the justification for the state's recognizing it as a financial and legal entity is weak to nonexistent. I don't care who marries who or why. Like I said, I've been there, done that twice. Maybe I'll do it a third time some day. But I damn sure don't think I should be financially rewarded for doing it if other people can't do it.
You appear to lack the ability to step out of your own petty perspective.
The state can make it extremely difficult or impossible to get divorced, even if the couple involved is in perfect agreement about it.
Exactly. Ireland is an example of one country where the state regulates marriage, and they didn't even allow divorce until - was it 1997??
In some states in the US it's easy, in some it's hard. Again - by putting itself in the business of regulating marriage the state almost always creates a dilemma for itself in which it's going to be unfair to someone.
Jeepers DADZRITES, you seem to be harbouring quite a bit of anger there. Were you attacked by a wild pack of gay, feminist liberals as a child or something?
Brownian, OM writes:
Let's be clear on one thing: marriage as a cultural and economic institution predates religion as we're describing it today.
Yes. But...
Pair-bonding in primates is extremely rare. Long-term monogamy is even more rare. In fact, it's pretty rare in humans. :D I submit to you, therefore, that our "values" regarding marriage and divorce (as well as the shame of being a "single mom") are religiously derived. Furthermore, the prevailing attitudes mirror those of the abrahamic religions. More evidence that they are at least in part based on religious "values." Indeed, the religious among us would agree whole-heartedly with that assessment.
That means that having a secular state offering preferential treatment or regulating "marriage" is - well - not something a secular state does. I don't think we'll see a constitutional challenge any time soon but that's because those popular attitudes are very very deeply socialized. They are not, however, rooted in typical primate behavior. Perhaps they really do come from god? (LOL!)
The state should not regulate marriage; it should be and remain a religious ceremony. Then the religions can have field days coming up with whatever ridiculous rules they want. But if it involves money and state regulation - hell, what's next? Tax relief if you pray in schools? That's ridiculous - but so is tax relief if you submit to a behavior that's basically religious superstition, blessed by the state.
(I have a plane to catch so I'll be offline for a few days)
I like it when conservatives turn purple. Those folks need a little color-- and what a FABulous color purple is!
It is an establishment clause violation, not a free exercise clause violation.
You seem to be having a hard time resisting it yourself.
SteveM writes:
I don't understand how it violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. If states were only allowing Catholics to marry, or forbidding Jews, etc. but none do that.
Let me break it down for you like this:
----looking at primates----
Non-monogamous: typical primate behavior
Non pair: typical primate behavior
Sex for non-reproductive entertainment: common in primates
No stigma attached to "unmarried" pregnancy: typical primate behavior
Same-sex sexual play: common in primates
Life-term pair bonding: uncommon in primates (Actually, pretty much nonexistent)
Breeding: yes
Divorce: N/a to primates
----looking at US government legal/social policy----
Non-monogamous: adultery is a crime. "marriage" rewarded legally and financially and socially desirable
Non-pair: bigamy is a crime. No social support for swinger lifestyle; muslims with multiple wives do not get exemption to bigamy laws, nor do mormons, etc.
Sex for non-reproductive entertainment: legal, socially acceptable since the 1960s
Same-sex sexual play: some illegal; decriminalized in 2003
Life-term pair bonding: rewarded by financial and legal incentives from government
Breeding: rewarded with tax breaks from government
Divorce: legal; financial disincentives may be applied
---Abrahamic Tradition---
Non-monogamous: adultery is a sin
Non-pair: bigamy is a sin
Sex for non-reproductive purposes: is a sin
Same-sex sexual play: is a sin
Life-term pair bonding: is a sacrament; in principle you go to hell if you have sex out of wedlock (disincentive?)
Breeding: is the only purpose for sex
Divorce: what's that?
So - is it purely coincidence that the US Government's legal structures and structures of financial incentives aligns nearly completely with abrahamic religious ideals? Of course not. It's clear that, when it comes to marriage laws, the US' legal structures actually are based on "christian values." Indeed, it's specifically judeo-christian because it doesn't like islamic multiple-wife scenarios.
It looks like, on this one, congress didn't establish or respect any particular religion -- they just lifted its "values" into law and enforce them with the power of the state.
Our popular attitudes toward "marriage" are based entirely on superstition, not natural primate behaviors. Wrap your brains around that; you've been heavily socialized to feel that "one man, one woman" (oops, "one whatever, and a matching whatever") is the natural order - but our "marriage" behaviors are not even remotely close to any other primates I can think of. Places where humans violate the religious strictures on "marriage" do more closely mirror typical primate behaviors.
My beef is not with "marriage." Anyone who wants a mother-in-law (or ten, for that matter) should be able to have one. For all I care, people can create their own religion which makes "marrying" your dog a sacrament. I completely do not give a shit -- until it is adopted by the state and is enforced unevenly with the power of the state. Lawmakers who swore to uphold the constitution yet also support anti same-sex legislation are forsworn and should be ashamed of themselves. It's as disgusting as passing laws based on skin color or what language you speak.
The solution is not to further patchwork our legal system; rather it is to recognize that this entire issue stems from adopting religious bullshit "values" into the core of our legal system. Get them out - let justice and the tax man be blind, and let the religions resume complete ownership over "marriage." Think of the fun they'll have! Maybe they'll be so busy oppressing eachother over who can kiss whom that they'll stop whining about evolution for a while. *sigh*
It occurs fairly often in gibbons, marmosets and tamarins. It's not the only reproductive pattern that occurs in any of those species--many primates are as variable as we are in that respect--but it's common.
I know I've always accepted the cottontop tamarin as Mother Nature's guide to sexual morality.
Homosexuality is a lie, otherwise homosexuals would not be dying!
So, does that mean heterosexuality is a lie, too? Because I'm pretty sure I'm gonna die some day, as did my grandpa, my great uncles, a high school friend ...
Lenin had a name for you too. Useless idiot.
To argue about how we can change society from a fully rational standpoint is futile.
That's the deeply disingenuous position of someone who has lost an argument -- badly. When you lose on the substantive level, you change the subject to the meta-level and attack your opponent for even offering his position.
Marcus pointed out that the state discriminates against the unmarried. To deny this in a thread about gay marriage is sick. As advocates for marriage equality have repeatedly pointed out, there are something like 1000 advantages to married couples in the federal law -- advantages that DOMA denies to people with same-sex partners regardless of state law. Thus repealing DOMA is essential, but it still won't extend those advantages to non-married persons. And there's little difference between telling an unmarried person that they have the choice of marrying and telling a gay person that they have the choice of marrying someone of the same sex. Neither the state nor busybodies like Justin have any business poking their noses into such private matters.
That nearly destroyed my shit-o-logic detector.
Not to quibble, but Vermont is the FIFTH state "to legalize gay marriage." The other four are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and CALIFORNIA.
Of course California has since backtracked, but the fact remains that it is a state and it did legalize gay marriage.
"Neither the state nor busybodies like Justin have any business poking their noses into such private matters."
I suggest you actually READ what transpired in this thread before you rush to sanctimonious judgement.
Perhaps then you wouldn't have mangled my position on the matter so badly.
Interesting that 3/4 of the states offering gay marriage border each other; domino effect?
#89
"infact get all conservatives out of the New England area"
YEAH BABY!!! That's the first time I can remember agreeing with a neocon. Infact don't stop with New Engalnd.
I hear Somalia's nice this time of year. Small government. Fundamentalist religious base.
Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+…
Uh.... HELLO?
Uh.... HELLO?
Let 'em have their moment. :-)
but, yeah....
I guess we in CT will have to let 'em have their moment, as well.
but, yeah....
;^)
Yup. Let'em have their moment(s).
Slackers.
=)
Hey, excuse me, but...
uh...
never mind.
You will all burn.
(No name jokes, please.)
I suggest you actually READ what transpired in this thread before you rush to sanctimonious judgement.
Perhaps then you wouldn't have mangled my position on the matter so badly.
Your ad hominem does not sway me; I did in fact read it and do not believe I mangled anything.
Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9.
Um, are you sure you're from California? In any case, we don't know that the good people of Vermont and Iowa wouldn't pass their own Prop 8 if given a chance.