Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 7, 2009 16:56:36 GMT -5
Gay mawwiage, is what bwings us together today...
So today the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto and legalized gay marriage. Then later today, the DC Council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. This all comes on the heels of the Iowa supreme court declaring that denying gay marriage in that state violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa constitution. So Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same-sex marriage, while New York and soon DC both will recognize them.
It's been a busy week for this issue! Discuss!
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 7, 2009 18:21:12 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 7, 2009 18:40:15 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion. From the small government crowd: I don't think government should be in our bedrooms and that's why I don't think they (legislatures or courts) should be in the business of overturning what has existed in this country since its inception.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 7, 2009 18:56:24 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion. From the small government crowd: I don't think government should be in our bedrooms and that's why I don't think they (legislatures or courts) should be in the business of overturning what has existed in this country since its inception. From the small government crowd: I dont think the government should have anything to do with "marriage" in any aspect. Marriage is a religious/social convention and means only what the two people involved in the marriage take it to mean. The only reason the government has any say in the matter is because of taxes- eliminate the tax laws that pertain to marriage and the government has no say.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Apr 7, 2009 19:50:25 GMT -5
The most interesting thing to me about the Vermont vote is that they didn't have the votes pre-veto, but after the veto 5 reps switched sides.
Any guesses to what the next state is? New Hampshire seems to me to be the next logical candidate.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 7, 2009 19:53:43 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion. From the small government crowd: I don't think government should be in our bedrooms and that's why I don't think they (legislatures or courts) should be in the business of overturning what has existed in this country since its inception. Like say, oh, universal suffrage, or maybe slavery?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Apr 7, 2009 20:13:19 GMT -5
Now that "sanctity of marriage" is being "defiled" in a couple of states, what's going to happen to all the straight couples out there? It's sooooo scary - now that they're not the only couples getting married, marriage just won't mean anything anymore! Will the divorce rate go up? (certainly won't be because of gay couples - it's amazing, when they say "'till death do us part", they mean it!) Will there be "gay converts"? Better hide the children!
Now being serious, this is such a non-event. The only difference between states with gay marriage/civil unions and those that do not is in the tax code. Everything else stays the same. Heterosexual relations will be the same and homosexual relations will also be the same - it's just that the taxes they pay will reflect reality - that they are living together in a domestic partnership. Churches, synagogues, and mosques will not be forced to perform gay marriages as religions retain the right to exclude as non-governmental entities!
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 7, 2009 22:52:02 GMT -5
I'm upset no one has acknowledged my awesome Princess Bride reference.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 8, 2009 8:08:22 GMT -5
I'm upset no one has acknowledged my awesome Princess Bride reference. Well, that's because you misspelled it. It's "mawwidge," with a very pronounced D. As for me, this is really not an issue for me. I do think there will be backlash in Iowa because of the way it came about there though. Also, I was unaware until reading this thread that gay couples never split up. Like whales I guess. Thanks for enlightening me, nyr.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 8, 2009 8:53:02 GMT -5
I'm upset no one has acknowledged my awesome Princess Bride reference. Well, that's because you misspelled it. It's "mawwidge," with a very pronounced D. As for me, this is really not an issue for me. I do think there will be backlash in Iowa because of the way it came about there though. Also, I was unaware until reading this thread that gay couples never split up. Like whales I guess. Thanks for enlightening me, nyr. I don't think there's going to be a backlash in Iowa, if only because the constitutional amendment process is much more laborious there (it takes two years and a supermajority in all the legislatures) and the Democrats are in charge there right now and don't seem too interested in changing anything. Of course, I'm not ruling out a popular backlash or anything, but the structure of the Iowa government isn't going to allow for a Prop. 8-type campaign there.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 8, 2009 10:00:07 GMT -5
Anything that allows/encouraqes two people who love each other to commit to each other and enjoy the same relationship I enjoy with my wife can only be good.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 8, 2009 10:28:59 GMT -5
Anything that allows/encouraqes two people who love each other to commit to each other and enjoy the same relationship I enjoy with my wife can only be good. Why not three people, you bigot?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 8, 2009 11:08:05 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion. From the small government crowd: I don't think government should be in our bedrooms and that's why I don't think they (legislatures or courts) should be in the business of overturning what has existed in this country since its inception. Wouldn't a small government fan be psyched about this decision; aren't state governments exactly who should be regulating this issue from their perspective? On Edit - Of course, this is based on the idea that marriages are currently regulated by state governments (they issue licenses and certificates) and therefore, they should be the ones who determine whether a marriage is valid.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 8, 2009 11:30:32 GMT -5
From the small government crowd: I don't think government should be in our bedrooms and that's why I don't think they (legislatures or courts) should be in the business of overturning what has existed in this country since its inception. Wouldn't a small government fan be psyched about this decision; aren't state governments exactly who should be regulating this issue from their perspective? On Edit - Of course, this is based on the idea that marriages are currently regulated by state governments (they issue licenses and certificates) and therefore, they should be the ones who determine whether a marriage is valid. To me, who is a different small government guy than ed is (probably), i would say that if you can convince me that something needs to be regulated by the government, it more than likely should be done so by the states. The areas that i would want the federal government to be involved would be creating national laws, running federal courts, and protection of our nation (two notes: that is the whole list, just those three, and when i say protection i mean primarily defensive protection and not all this policing the world crap)
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2009 14:15:56 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion. Since when did favoring small government become the equivalent of, essentially, no government. Those of us that think that less government is better think that government has grown too big and gotten itself entangled in too many areas where it not ought to be through the establishment and funding of programs after program after program. This is a lot different than the government taking the position on marriage, civil unions, etc. This is akin to saying "small government" people can't be in favor of the embargo on Cuba. There's a difference between policy stances and establishing programs that need my tax dollars to function. Bonus points for why religion should automatically be excluded from any such debate? Is not a valid basis upon which to base one's opinion. This is a christian nation after all (or is it, Mr. President?).
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2009 14:17:02 GMT -5
Anything that allows/encouraqes two people who love each other to commit to each other and enjoy the same relationship I enjoy with my wife can only be good. Why not three people, you bigot? oh my, now we're going back to the thread where gay marriage is ok but polygamy is not.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 8, 2009 14:34:49 GMT -5
All I care about is that we get to the point where I can marry the female android that I've built in my basement.
Or perhaps I've said too much.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 8, 2009 15:11:38 GMT -5
Oh, I can't wait for the small government crowd to explain why that small government should be in our bedrooms. Bonus points for not resorting to religion. Since when did favoring small government become the equivalent of, essentially, no government. Those of us that think that less government is better think that government has grown too big and gotten itself entangled in too many areas where it not ought to be through the establishment and funding of programs after program after program. This is a lot different than the government taking the position on marriage, civil unions, etc. This is akin to saying "small government" people can't be in favor of the embargo on Cuba. There's a difference between policy stances and establishing programs that need my tax dollars to function. Bonus points for why religion should automatically be excluded from any such debate? Is not a valid basis upon which to base one's opinion. This is a christian nation after all (or is it, Mr. President?). This IS not a Christian nation. It WAS founded on Christian principles. Those principles remain extremely valuable to many people, and even I would agree, likely guide a lot of what we do and who we see ourselves as. But to say that the nation is itself "Christian" is wrong. Everyone likes to say "We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles," so we ARE Christian. OK. We were also founded on the backs of enslaved blacks. Does that mean we ARE "slave-owning" or a forever "racist Nation"? I would argue no. And you don't get to argue that religion is a legal justification for something because...really? Does this require an explanation? Why our laws should not track YOUR religion? In terms of small government, I agree with whoever above said that government should be out of the marriage business altogether.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 8, 2009 15:14:22 GMT -5
Anything that allows/encouraqes two people who love each other to commit to each other and enjoy the same relationship I enjoy with my wife can only be good. Why not three people, you bigot? To be honest, if three adults want to live in a house together, and screw like bunnies, and raise 15 kids, and whatever else...frankly, I don't care. Government doesn't have to recognize it. Government doesn't need to give them any benefits at all. You can condemn them all you want. If their warped church wants to call them married, so be it. You and I can call it wrong, sick, etc. Our government doesn't have to call it anything.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Apr 8, 2009 15:44:34 GMT -5
|
|