Not necessarily my opinion, but just some humor on the subject, thanks to Wiley and today's Non Sequitur

http://www.gocomics.com/comic_page/explore/122464?page=4

You need a log-in to access that comic. Here's one from bugmenot.com:

Login: bmnot
Password: password

I have nothing to say on the substance, but the process is critically important. RvW has distorted our politics for 35 years and counting. Judge-made legal revolutions rip the social fabric.

So I say this to the Prop. 8 zealots:
Go back, touch second base, pass it in the legislature, pass it in an initiative. If you have to wait to get your way, don't pout. Your opponents' opinions are as valid as your own.
--
phunctor

I always find it funny when people try to use the bible to justify their bigotry. I really makes m belive that most people never bohered to read it.

Unfortunaly if they were to make a movie out of it the MPAA would give it a NC17 or X rating

Not to mention the sheer number of times the damn thing has been edited, "corrected", translated, and had entire books removed on the whims of self proclaimed experts

phunctor opinions based on religion are not valid.

Especially given the a la carte attitude so many christians have to the myriad of edicts the bible proclaims.

My opinion is that slavery is bad - according to the bible slavey is good, not only good but an institution endorsed by god

If you want to live your lie(fredian slip)
If you want to live your life as a slave to an ass backwards cult go right ahead - but why should anyone else have to live their lives in accordance with your whims?

Suppose for a moment that gay people out numbered straight people and they pased laws outlawing straight marrige - would you be as nonchalant as you are now?

Is there anyone else here who finds the idea of basing modern cultural guidelines decisions on a two millennia old fiction book a tad retarded?

Good morning Lujlp-

I'm going to call a technical foul on one portion of your argument; that opinions based on religion are not valid.

The reason everyone is entitled to an opinion is because we're all (supposed to be, even on blogs) allowed a voice. By definition, an opinion is subjective, which itself, in turn by definition is: "Resulting from or pertaining to personal mindsets or experience, arising from perceptive mental conditions within the brain and not necessarily from external stimuli." Thereby to state that it is invalid would be akin to denying anyone the right to said personal mindsets or experiences, simply because you think your opinion (being that Christianity or any other organized religion is flawed and therefore completely invalidates anything it touches) is trump to the entire argument. Very few of us have the actual power to go with the hubris that would presume to grant anything validity, especially to anyone else's inviolable opinion.

Unless you want to start by saying "In my opinion, opinions based on religion are not valid." Then, that would be more appropriate.

And you're absolutely entitled to the rest of your argument. Have a great Monday!

Toubrouk,

Agreed ...

Thank you, and have a great day yourself.

First I never said people werent entitled to an opinion

And just because an opninion is subjective does ot exclud it from being wrong. Clan members are wrong.

People who think cheaters should be killed are wrong, pedophiles who think sex with children is OK are wrong.

And I am sorry but opinions based on religions which constantly contradict themselves are wrong as well

I really dont care what behavioral restraints you choose to place upon yourself.

I am sorry but
your opinion
of your preachers postion
on a subject not covered in a book
that has been edited, revised, excised, by self appointed gaurdians of
the original fourth handed
hearsey accounts of
event millena old

is no reasonalbe basis for passing laws on an act that has no relevence to or effect on you

and by you I dont mean you personally julianna as I cant remember your position on this subject

I ment it generically for everyone who things the irrational opinion is a good enough reason to fuck with complete strangers lives

You all do realize there are plenty of non-religious anti-gay-marriage people, right? It, much like abortion, is not an either/or proposition. So while religion may be the biggest opponent, it's not the only one. And I'm not sure it would pass yet even without religion. Minorities-certainly anti all marriage in practice-voted overwhelmingly for the proposition. If you can't pass something democratically, it has no business being passed.

Yes, the bible condones a lot of things we find abhorrent. One of the things it condemns is men lying with men. It's not shy there, whether it says they can't marry or not.

If religious opinion has no basis for passing laws, then we'll lose most of our most treasured ones. Like, thou shalt not kill. It will then be left to the sort of "ethics" professors that teach at the hallowed institutions that hire Ayers and preach socialism and moral relativism. Meaning, it may become ok to kill certain people. That's not how our country was founded and not what we need to turn it into.

You all do realize there are plenty of non-religious anti-gay-marriage people, right? It, much like abortion, is not an either/or proposition. So while religion may be the biggest opponent, it's not the only one. And I'm not sure it would pass yet even without religion. Minorities-no bastion of traditional morals-voted overwhelmingly for the proposition. If you can't pass social change democratically, it has no business being passed.

Yes, the bible condones a lot of things we find abhorrent. One of the things it condemns is men lying with men. It's not shy there, whether it says they can't marry or not.

If religious opinion has no basis for passing laws, then we'll lose most of our most treasured ones. Like, thou shalt not kill. It will then be left to the sort of "ethics" professors that teach at the hallowed institutions that hire Ayers and preach socialism and moral relativism. Meaning, it may become ok to kill certain people. That's not how our country was founded and not what we need to turn it into.

Slavery was on it's way out legislatively. There was no need for war. It was stupid (male) pride that insisted on all those deaths. If they'd waited a few years it would have happened peacefully like it already had in over half the country.

Whoops on the double post, sorry

I am so sick of the argument that if it werent for religion there would be no laws at all and we'd be living in anarchy.

News flash momof3 cultures that never heard of the ten comandments has laws about theft and murder.

And given Lincon supported the corwin amendment and made no move to either attck the south or outlaw slavery until the afterv south attacked how did you suppose that slavery would have died out on its own?

> "And as I've said before, because you think gay marriage is "weird," as somebody put it to me, doesn't mean you get to deny a whole bunch of people rights."

What "rights" under California law are you talking about? (Federal law is irrelevant to Prop. 8.) Can you identify any right denied to gay couples under the existing domestic partnership law which is available to married couples? ..... I didn't think so.

This is NOT about rights at all. It is about a mandated change in the definition of a word ... a word many associate with a blessed sacrament. It is about "forced toleration." What word would you select to describe that phenomenon?

This is debate over which reasonable minds can differ. But I still cannot abide lack of intellectual integrity and sloppy analysis, which cheapen and degrade whatever result is obtained.

Just want to keep you sharp, Amy! (Love ya'!)

The same way it had already died out in over half the states and territories. VOTES.

No one said there'd be no laws. I said, if they weren't based on religion-which is what the founding fathers did base them on-they'd be based on...what? Whatever current thinking is in fashion?

Vikings punishment for killing another was that the family of the dead could make the offender pay a fine to make up for lost wages (or the viking equivalent). Similar trivializing laws are easily found throughout the world and history.

This voting thing is a real pain when it turns out wrong, right? I remain unsympathetic.

I'll ask you then mark, would you be as unsympathetic if there were enough votes to outlaw straight marriage?

Come on now, Amy! The situation in California is not the same as New Jersey, and even there, the only comment was that employers chose to make distinctions. But you would impose "mandatory tolerance" on them, right?

Why not Jay we had "manditory" tolerence of blacks and white getting married

FYI fuckwad it isnt tolerence its called EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

Momof3says: If religious opinion has no basis for passing laws, then we'll lose most of our most treasured ones. Like, thou shalt not kill. It will then be left to the sort of "ethics" professors that teach at the hallowed institutions that hire Ayers and preach socialism and moral relativism. Meaning, it may become ok to kill certain people. That's not how our country was founded and not what we need to turn it into.

It's already ok to kill certain people, though, isn't it? The US has the death penalty in many states, and of course the US military is off in a variety of countries killing people. (Yes, that's putting it very simplistically, since Momof3's statement was just so jaw-droppingly naive and simple itself).

And, of course, how many people were killed *by the church* in the name of God? I'm pretty sure that's a number greater than zero.

Religion doesn't make anyone (or any institution or philosophy) better simply by dint of worshipping some supreme being. As someone else correctly pointed out, lots of cultures who've never heard of the Ten Commandments still essentially follow (at least most of) them.

"Momof3says: If religious opinion has no basis for passing laws, then we'll lose most of our most treasured ones. Like, thou shalt not kill."

They don't even follow that one consistently, Momof3. Most christians I know are big-time death penalty advocates...and pro-life marchers.

And, yes, how do we explain the pologamy? If we follow the bible so literally in making laws about marriage then every man should be allowed as many wives as he wants. Do you think that proposition would pass?

There's just no rhyme or reason to it, so the bible shouldn't be a reference when making laws.

I agree that civil unions offer the same rights - it seems to me that the difference is merely a legal paperwork issue. Gays could still say they are "married", even if their license is slightly different than ours.

But they don't feel the same about civil unions - they want it to be completely equal, and the word "marriage" has emotional significance. I really don't have a problem with that.

I don't understand why straight people are so threatened by it. A gay marriage in no way changes the "sacrement" or meaning of marriage between a straight couple.

Meaning, it may become ok to kill certain people. That's not how our country was founded and not what we need to turn it into. - momof3

As already posted, it is already OK to kill certain people in pretty much any part of the world. I think that is how the US in particular was founded.

---

"phunctor opinions based on religion are not valid." I find this - speaking as an atheist - hard to accept. Opinions are not facts. People with similar opinions gather into groups, and some of them form organized religions. How does that detract from their opinions? Criticizing their opinions because of where they come from is like an ad hominem attack. The ideas should stand or fall by themselves. Some of them are quite good - in my opinion - such as the idea of forgiving people, rather than bearing a grudge and starting a vendetta. Even Moses' eye for an eye is better than escalation. My opinion is open to criticism, of course - but that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the opinion, not its origin, that matters.

The Enlightenment consisted more or less of WesCiv deciding to pretend that the satanic heretical opinion of the fuckwad in front of you was valid -- because the alternative was another 30 years of the rivers running red. Nobody really believed it then or now, but it has worked out pretty well.

--
phunctor

> And as I've said before, because
> you think gay marriage is "
> weird," as somebody put it to
> me

Who? In what context? What makes you think that was all they had to say about it?

Amy, your weirdness about this gets a little freakier every day.

You claim often and loudly to believe that religion is hogwash, a burden on civilization. Yet you have precise instructions on how religious people should be expected to interpret their materials.

And you bring these expectations to the matter of marriage... Which you also claim to be a burden on civilization. You want religious people agree with you about both practices, even though you believe in neither of them!

Is there any reason people shouldn't assume you're just a crazed busybody?

How about polygymay. If the genders of the couple are not important, why is the number? What's so special about the number 2? If 6 or 7 people want to get married to each other who are we to say they can't?

> pass it in the legislature,
> pass it in an initiative.

Word. I agree with every word of that comment.

> I always find it funny when
> people try to use the bible
> to justify their bigotry.

Other people find it silly that they're expected to care about your opinion. Got it?

> By definition, an opinion is
> subjective, which itself, in
> turn by definition is:
> "Resulting from or pertaining...

Yeah. Remember that guy a few weeks ago who was all wanked (so to speak) about circumcision? He couldn't listen to anyone else without dismissing their thoughts as "subjective." But as it turns out, he thought his own obsessions were always "logical"!

Iddinat sumpin'? Funny how that works out.

> I remain unsympathetic.

Another good comment. There are some neat people in here.

> FYI fuckwad...

Persuasion!

> ...it isnt tolerence its called
> EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

Gays have always had exactly the same rights to marriage as anyone else. Why are you afraid to admit that you want to change an ancient institution?

> I don't understand why straight
> people are so threatened by it.

It ain't just straights, it's sensible people. It's bad for the kids. It's naive. It's simplistic and sing-songy. Gay marriage imagines a world where everything that bad that happens to you is done to you by an evil Dick Cheney; where couples have no responsibility to the broader community; where they are nonetheless encouraged to take as much value from the imaginary Man as they can carry; where language can be twisted in the service of Disneyland narratives; where vast numbers of people who've never given a damn for anyone else, or done anything for anyone else, or risked anything even for themselves can achieve Rosa Parks-style righteousness by lashing out with all the pouty rage from their own childhood hurts.

People are having too much fun being cranked about this. Does anyone, anyone believe that middle-term future civilization (say, 200-500 years from now) will look back on this and think that gay marriage was the best project for all this 'compassion'?

(Minutes later)

These are not the behaviors of thoughtful wage-earners toward their employers. They're the screeching teenage hissyfits of a child to his Daddy.

But Karl Rove is not your Daddy. He's not even your boss.

"It ain't just straights, it's sensible people. It's bad for the kids. It's naive. It's simplistic and sing-songy."

What proof do you have that it's bad for kids?

Is it better for kids to languish in foster care with NO parents, as they are forced to do in my state, rather than be adopted by a committed gay couple?

And bad compared to what - a crack-addicted mother with 7 boyfriends? A broken home or single-parent home?

It seems to me a lot of kids out there would be much better off in a home with two loving parents, even of the same gender.

seems to me that framing the question this way is just an attack on religion that only serves to hearten their defense... and that is stupid.

Why is anyone allowing this to be framed as an us vs. them religious question? This is public policy in a country with separation of church and state. Doesn't matter what I think about the question from a personal point of view. I get my one vote. From a public policy POV, marriage isn't important, only the conferrance of right and responsibilities, ie. a CONTRACT between two parties.

That should be the end of the story. Looking at it that way marginalizes the input of any religion. It isn't their call because it's a contract. If they want to bless said contract, great.

Pushing this as a question of forcing some kind of tolerance from a given religion is like stirring up a fire ant hill. This causes the question NOT to be solved. The more you push, the more religions will feel singled out for the question, the more righteous they feel their defense to be.

Do you get divorced in church? NO, THE COURTHOUSE. You have to deal with the church on your own time.

This is simple framing of the question. There is no marriage, there is only civil union, or civil contract. How people choose to celebrate or embellish that contract is up to them, and the government should STAY OUT of that.

All the money wasted pondering court cases about how to force the issue are saved, nobody gets painted the villian and happiness ensues.

Unless, of course, the point IS to paint someone as some kind of villian, and to make sure that this is tied up in courts forever.

You want to get together with your partner forever? Party on, garth. It should be a contract that both agree to that is in holding with a general template sanctioned by the government. No matter who you are. What you choose to call it after that is a personal issue. Why so difficult?

> And bad compared to what -
> a crack-addicted mother
> with 7 boyfriends? A broken
> home or single-parent home?

Aw, now, LS... We can tell that you're a thoughtful woman! You wouldn't throw away your chance at persuasion by comparing apples to oranges (or crack addicts to loving parents), would you?

Of course not. You know better than that. So, you probably just lost your head for a second there.

A lot of people are losing their heads over this nowadays... I think that's the point of doing it. They want to be absolutely, perfectly righteous about something, without a whole lot of cost. Or thought. Or interpersonal conflict. They wanna be Rosa Parks, only instead of risking asscheek in a southern jail, they wanna just be smug in the privacy of their own homes.

--

I don't mean to harsh you too badly. Your first point --that loving, deeply committed gay couples have an essential role to play in ending our adoption nightmares-- is one that deserves respect. I raised it the first time I picked this fight on tihs blog, several years ago.

But don't hold your breath. When guys like Loojy bring the full power of their spellcheck and punctuation to bear on matters of "rights", it's pretty obvious that simplistic thinking has more importance in the debate than fulfillment of social needs.

But I'd love to know what you think: Which class of person is most oppressed in American society today? And if it's not the gays, how come Prop 8 is getting so much attention?

"If religious opinion has no basis for passing laws, then we'll lose most of our most treasured ones. Like, thou shalt not kill." momof3

I think we gave up that ghost when we ratified the Second Amendment. Hallelujah. My firearms are not fashion accessories.

And on a separate note -

And my family is not a fiction awaiting legal sanction to make it a reality. I simply want an end to the discrimination that costs my family more money and leaves us more vulnerable - uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act, taxed at a higher rate, ineligible for many of the financial benefits automatically set aside for spouses. Pennsylvania's government, like many states, has already approved same-sex second parent adoption so the same-sex-parents household is already a done deal regardless. Enough already.

"It's bad for the kids."

Still waiting for proof or any kind of evidence on this one.

"It's naive. It's simplistic and sing-songy. Gay marriage imagines a world where everything that bad that happens to you is done to you by an evil Dick Cheney; where couples have no responsibility to the broader community . . . "

OK, we get it. You dislike the snobbery you perceive as attached to the pro-gay marriage lobby. This is not a policy argument.

Dead on, Amy & Michelle.

We're not going to turn back the clock here. This change in our society has already taken place, whether you approve or not. Gays are cohabitating, adopting children together or having them by surrogate or donors. You're not going to push this change backwards by saying, "Ha! You can't have this piece of paper!"

All they want is to legitimize the families they're already building. They want to be able to say to their kids, "We're married too...just like our neighbors."

I really think that if conservatives could step back from the religious "one man/one woman dogma (which isn't even accurate), they would see that supporting this is one of the most conservative and socially responsible things to do.

"But I'd love to know what you think: Which class of person is most oppressed in American society today? And if it's not the gays, how come Prop 8 is getting so much attention?"

I'll bet you'd probably like me to say, men, Crid. :) Yet, I don't think anyone is that oppressed in our society today. It's probably regional, but I'd tend to say Haitians.

But as far as denying people a civil contract, as Swiss says, I can't think of another group that is more disenfranchised than gays. I mean, he's right - who cares what anyone calls it after they leave the courthouse? But denying a whole segment of legal citizens the right to that routine civil contract is sort of like denying them a voter's registration card or a driver's license.

And it gets so much attention because that sort of bigotry should.

Its often said that the only justification to deny gay marriage is religious, and I'll admit that one IS the one we hear most common, and frankly I find it as tired as most of you do.

However there is something else to be considered here, and I'll play the role of devil's advocate for a moment.

The most commonly heard phrase with regards to same sex marriage is that that it is "A right being denied" or some variation thereof.

However is it?

The constitution specifically lists certain rights which are protected. By not mentioning a right specifically, our founding fathers were specifically refusing to protect certain things.

Nowhere in federal law does it state that all people have an inherent right to marry every one in every combination.

We frequently assume it is a right to marry based on law...but the fact is it is more strongly based on custom and tradition dating back many centuries, what laws there are that are written down, are based entirely on the customs of earlier periods.

In all that time, we do not find public cultural, traditional, or legal endorsement of a same sex union. Ergo, the customs and traditional interpretations of the law can by definition be the only "legitimate" ones.

That being said, I'm not in opposition to such a union myself, I believe our culture is changing and is growing more and more open to it, however this battle will NOT go as its advocates wish unless of course they appeal to the better nature of their neighbors, friends, and families.

We revere Martin Luther King jr. because he united us in a moral outlook that called for justice and respect for one's fellows, to understand and to live and let live and let character decide who we are. The push for same sex marriage has been frankly rude, crude, and confrontational in a way that guaranteed a backlash by the religious right, and since such tactics continue its no wonder that the far right has such success in pushing initiatives that refuse to legitimize same sex unions.

Rights occur not by magic, but by the will of the people coming together and saying, "This must be protected". In short, the right of same sex couples to marry & divorce like the rest of us comes not from a few liberal judges overriding centuries of common law & culture, it comes from US saying we want this extended to all circumstances.

If you're so in favor of allowing such unions, push a counter referendum through, debate it in public, and vote whatever your conscience demands.

Screaming "Bigot" at every opponent, and looking for a judge to grant an outcome...well you pretty much forfeit the right to be surprised when there is a backlash.

"Rights occur not by magic, but by the will of the people coming together and saying, "This must be protected".

" . . .and looking for a judge to grant an outcome...well you pretty much forfeit the right to be surprised when there is a backlash."

This is pretty narrow view of the "will of the people" that conveniently ignores the fact that CA Supreme Court Justices are elected at 12 year intervals.

> Plenty of religious people
> are unethical.

Relevance?

> Sorry if it irks your
> fundamentalist innards

You plug your ears and scream LA-LA anytime anyone presents any logic about this. Pretending your adversaries are buffoons is an essential component of this for you.

> I simply want an end to the
> discrimination that costs my
> family more money

Again, people cranking over public finances as if they were children bickering with their Daddy over allowance.

> why should their children be
> discriminated against because
> some people have an irrational
> belief in god?

YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. It's not relevant. It's not rational. It's not got anything to do with people or what's going on out there, Amy. It's an ever-more pathetic loop of fantasy in which you're the heroine of the human condition. Why do you do this?

> We didn't get to vote on
> whether black people got
> the same rights as white people.

The Hell we didn't. Have you ever read a history book?

> I'd tend to say Haitians.

Haitians are part of American society? Haitians are what people of America will weep over the way we weep over slavery?

> I can't think of another group
> that is more disenfranchised
> than gays.

Inexplicable. And were this true, America would essentially be paradise. But I'm quite certain that it's not.

Gays have always had exactly the same rights to marriage as anyone else. Why are you afraid to admit that you want to change an ancient institution? -crid

Most laws regarding marrige didnt mention specific genders - until recently that is

And I am not afraid to admit I want it changed, its already been changed dozens of times before.

Marrige started out as slavery with men purchasing women, at one time women were not allowed to get a divorce, polygamy was once permissable, at one time having a mistress was endorsed and not grounds for divorce.

Marrige has been changed dozens of times thru out history - the real question is why does this change bother you?

Amy, it seems like every time the topic comes up, you respond as if you've been woken from a deep sleep by it, responding with stock lines... But this time, your tale about black civil rights gets a little more enhancement, where nobody actually did anything to make it happen. Maybe a red-headed advice columnist in the fifties snapped her fingers, and poof! ... America was improved.

Ya know, I've been staying out of this one, because I really don't give a rat's ass who marries whoever, but when I read Michelle's post, I heard the little 'ding ding!' go off in my head and thought "Money. It's the financial aspect of the marriage contract that they want. But then, if they have a civil union, a civil contract as it were, what the fuck is the big damn deal over what it's called?? It's still the same thing!" And then, I recalled last night's final episode of Boston Legal. (Denny Crane. I love him.) Denny and Alan Shore got married. So that Alan would have final say over what happened to Denny when his Alzhiemer's kicks in, and so that Denny's money would go directly to Alan without being taxed up the wazoo. And then I thought, "But wouldn't a legal, binding contract accomplish the same thing?" Apparently, the answer is "No". So, that's what it comes down to. Protection of the financial assets of the couple in question. Whether male/female, male/male, female/female. And why shouldn't they have the same protection? They worked just as hard as anybody else for their money. Why shouldn't they have the final say about who it goes to? Why shouldn't they have the final say in their partner's right to die, or to medication, or whatever? But most of that takes place in COURT. Not the church. But so what? Even when a civil ceremony takes place, it's still a marriage, isn't it? o.O

"Rights occur not by magic, but by the will of the people coming together and saying, "This must be protected". In short, the right of same sex couples to marry & divorce like the rest of us comes not from a few liberal judges overriding centuries of common law & culture, it comes from US saying we want this extended to all circumstances".

Not necessarily. Rights can come from the courts, as I believe it did with Brown vs. Board of Education, not because the population got so much of "an appeal to our better nature" by blacks that we felt all warm and fuzzy and stopped being against integration.

When a position taken by the majority is unjust, it will ultimately be changed based solely on the merits of the case.

I don't think it would matter one bit how gays treat the religious right, or the rest of us. That shouldn't be their burden anyway. People should have the common sense and integrity to address discrimination even when they don't "like" the people being discriminated against.

Also, let's talk about the parameters of the concept of the "gay parent"

Wouldn't the parameters be no different than mine? I can't beat or kill them, can't molest them, can't sell them into slavery...

What do you mean, crid?

It's true that gay parenting can create some unique challenges. One of the only semi-justifiable reasons for denying gay marriage in my view is that their unions are no more likely to last than ours - and the family courts are already overwhelmed with divorce and custody issues.

But that's not a very good justification overall. If we are to have equal rights, we should have the right to fail equally too.

Yet, I think it is proving challenging to the states who have already allowed gay marriage. They are getting their first gay divorces now, and custody issues are more complex.

I mean, normally, judges could just rely on their female bias, but with two dads or two moms, it's much harder for them to determine who to show bias towards....lol.

>>Does anyone, anyone believe that middle-term future civilization (say, 200-500 years from now) will look back on this and think that gay marriage was the best project for all this 'compassion'?

Totally, Crid!

And I hear there's gonna be a fabulous parade to mark the bicentenary celebrations too!

"Again, people cranking over public finances as if they were children bickering with their Daddy over allowance."

Wrong. You have it backward. Taxes are what happens when the government takes my money from me.

I'm not asking for an allowance from the government. I object that the government stands to take more of the wealth my partner and I generate within our shared lives together, should one of us predecease the other. Inheritance gets taxed at a higher rate, pensions negotiated and earned as employment compensation do not get transferred to the surviving spouse - there are lots of ways that the government steps in and takes more of our family's money when we may need it most (at the death of a wage-earner) simply because it does not recognize my marriage. If my home state recognizes my marriage, the federal government still does not - and takes more of my money than if it did. The only way we have around this regarding some portions of our wealth is to put everything we can designate, in both of our names - but this requires us to put ourselves in a more vulnerable position with regard to one another than legally married people are required to do.

In the wake of the myriad intersections between state vs. federal laws, and public policy vs. private contracts, there are many protections and benefits my partner and I cannot create for one another through private contracts. What we can create together, requires a lot of expensive, expert legal services spanning various areas of law. I know few people who have the money and consumer-education required to patch together through legal services what most people unwittingly receive by paying for their marriage license and doing the deed at the JOP on their lunch hour.

>>What we can create together, requires a lot of expensive, expert legal services spanning various areas of law. I know few people who have the money and consumer-education required to patch together through legal services what most people unwittingly receive by paying for their marriage license and doing the deed at the JOP on their lunch hour.

Michelle,

I wish more of the vague "antis" would directly address this point.

Instead of appearing to believe it's some silly bid for metaphysical parity with the one and only sacred coupling!

"I wish more of the vague "antis" would directly address this point." Jody

Me too. The more specific one gets, the more readily the inconsistencies in the arguments become clear.

It's quite simple really.

They don't deserve them. Neither do straight couples, if you ask me.

I see no reason that the government ought to subsidise child-making. And that's the only reason they got into the marriage business in the first place.

I see no argument in favor of gay marriage that could not be applied equally to polygymy.

Given that polygamy is the real tradition of marrige why arent religious nutters pushing that agenda?

And what is wrong with polygamy perro?

_________

Ditto with incest. Why should it be illegal for a brother to marry his own brother, or for sisters to marry, etc.? Why should our "natural" distaste for incest prevent those couples from marrying, if they wish? Amy, where is your outrage at this denial of "rights" to a certain sub-set of people?

As for the subject of children, that is perhaps the key issue. The fact is, there is no "their" children for a gay couple in biological terms. At best, only one of the parents can be biologically related. Simply put, it is generally preferable for progeny throughout the natural world (including us humans)to be raised by those closest to them genetically. Thus, in general (the exceptions prove the rule), a mother-father coupling is better for children than any other alternative -- even if those other alternatives are not necessarily "bad" for children. (After all, it would be better for a child to be raised even by a pack of wolves than to be abandoned to die, right? Just as it is better for a child to be raised by a single mother and her unrelated boyfriend than by wolves -- nothwithstanding that a child is 50 times more likely to be killed or injured in such a home than in a home with its biological dad, right?)

"And what is wrong with polygamy?"

Care to take a stab at that one, Amy? (Without violating anyone's precious right to privacy, of course.)

Polygamy turns women into chattel, Loojy. If you're misogynistic, then you won't have a problem with that. There are many other points, but I recommend you do some research to see what happens to women and young girls in polygamist cultures. It's reprehensible, sadistic, and dehumanizing.

I recommend "When Men Become Gods" by Stephen Singular. It examines our most recent domestic polygamist situation. Carolyn Jessop's book "Escape" for a polygamist wife's perspective is good, too.

You bring up an interesting fact Jay, not withstand your hyperbole of "50" times.

Children are indeed more likey to die at the hands of their mothers. So wouldnt it be in their best interest to be placed in stable gay homes?

Quite frankly I cant tell if your an ass or playing devils advocate, but given noone bats an eye when people get divorced for being bored I see no reason to not allow gay people to marry and adopt

and juliana - I was raised as a mormon so I know my polygamy history (Solomon was reputed to have 300 wives and 700 concubines) - but as I pointed out polygamy is the traditional form of religion.

You can change an "ancient tradition"(thanks crid) to the point that it suits your sensibilites and then get upset when others want to do the same.

Incedentally why is it wrong for atheist to point out the flaws in mainstream religions, but not for members of said religions to point out the flaws of the smaller cults, excuse me, religions?

Incest has proven negative genetic consequences for the offspring, so that's not an appropriate comparison.

Pologamy is perhaps more appropriate, and maybe that'll be the next anti-discrimination movement, but so far, I don't see them asking en masse for the right to marry legally.

Pologamists usually have their own religious ceremonies, which are significant to them, and they don't seem to care so much about the civil contract - at least for multiple wives -perhaps because they can still marry one wife legally and pass their benefits and property on to be shared among the family. Thus, they are not in such a disadvantaged legal position as gays are.

And as adopted child, I find your comment about biological relatives just plain ignorant. I could not have a better, more loving family, even though none are biologically-related to me. Genes are not what makes a family.

Actually, Loojy, there are points of Christianity that I find defensible, others I simply cannot. I'm flawed. The Bible has parts that I take umbrage with (cough misogyny cough); I've gotten a few "looks" at church for bringing up troublesome questions. I'm something of a antagonistic black sheep. Point out the flaws to your hearts' content, my dear. I truly enjoy such discussions, it helps keep people on their toes.

lujlp -

You want the single best argument against polygamy? It creates vast quantities of unmarriageable men.

And when you have roving bands of men with nothing to live for, you get shaheed.

"And what is wrong with polygamy perro?"

The point is, if society doesn't have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman, what right does it have to define it as a union of only two people? It's still the majority enforcing their beliefs about marriage upon a minority.

I suspect that polygamists - I'm thinking of the large clans in Utah - do not push for legal recognition of their concurrent marriages, because the lack of recognition creates some plausible deniability as to paternity. The families use this to collect welfare for their children, while the children live with both parents, without giving the government the information it would need to seize funding from the biological father.

In the US, polygamist marriages are cultivated to compel breeding, out of a religious imperative to produce leagues of children.

Keeping polygamy *illegal* is what financially supports the polygamist lifestyle. In contrast, keeping same sex marriage illegal creates a financial (and emotional, etc) penalty for those of us who marry someone of the same sex and do not marry someone of the opposite sex.

Polygamists want to avoid paying for their choices. Same-sex couples want to avoid over-paying for their choices.

> Totally, Crid!

The exclamation point makes it just a trace too sarcastic... I'm presuming you concede the point.

"I suspect that polygamists"...... actually you're absolutely right in your suspicion, Michelle. This has been documented to great length, and they are indeed using it to milk the heck out of the system. To boot, they crow about it, and consider it a moral obligation to take resources away "from the Beast", how they refer to the US Government.

"Incest has proven negative genetic consequences for the offspring, so that's not an appropriate comparison."

Please don't try to dodge the issue. How can two brothers or two sisters have negative genetic consequences? Also, for a brother and sister, the exact same alternatives to natural reproduction (adoption, sperm/egg donors)are available as are available to gay or infertile couples.

Either maintain a consistent position -- or be a hypocrite.

Amy, you're claiming to hold 2 noncompatible beliefs again. Society should always do what's best for the kids? Wouldn't that include using tax dollars to educate them? Oh, what's best for the kids is ending societal discrimination against their parents? Then damn you for daring to look down on a woman who has 5 kids with as many lawbreaking men! Society should give them welfare! It's best for the kiddos! No judgement here!

Yes, if gays can marry, then so can relatives and multiple partners. It's either a special sacrament recognized by the state to encourage stable childbearing families, or a right available to all that the state stays out of.

I've said before on this blog, I don't care who you sleep with. Yes, the bible does in fact condemn homosexuality. It's also condemns gluttony and greed and any number of other sins. But I am not rabid anti-gay, or anti-gay at all. I just think they're being ludicrous here.

And, my final thought on this particular topic:
scene: courtroom. And adult male is lying on the floor, kicking his legs and flailing his arms.
man: "Wah!!!!! I want it called MARRIAGE!!!! Wahhh!!!!
camera fades.

And how is that any different than the the religious flailing about crying they dont want it caled a marriage?

And perro your an idiot, society did not have the right to define marrige as only between members of the same race, why should it with sex?

Noone else I asked dared to answer this qustion so I'll ask you as well.

Suppose gays gain a majority and outlaw straight marrige, would you be as indifferent to the minority when you are a part of it?

Suppose gays gain a majority and outlaw straight marrige, would you be as indifferent to the minority when you are a part of it?

Well, that would certainly put an end to the debate over whether homosexuality is a choice or a genetic impulse, wouldn't it?

Come in, luj, you're grasping at straws.

The universe does not recognize homosexuality as a useful arrangement.

And more to the point, who gives a fuck what "the universe" thinks?

To attribute such judgment to the cosmos is indistinguishable from a belief in God. Civilization is all about making space and comfort on a planet that takes no special notice of our arrivals or departures.
And if I was in love with someone (or even casually attracted) and you remarked, in person, that 'the universe' didn't think my response to be part of a 'useful arrangement', what reply would you expect?

And if I was in love with someone (or even casually attracted) and you remarked, in person, that 'the universe' didn't think my response to be part of a 'useful arrangement', what reply would you expect?

No matter how you irritate me sometimes Crid that is exactly why I love you.

Happy Holidays.

And because it's almost Christmas I will refrain from using any commas in this comment.

It differs because we are :

1. Not expecting the court to overrule the majority who has spoken via their voting rights

and

2. not throwing tempter tantrums right now in street across california. Or threatening a "day without a straight" call in. Or selectively targeting the one easy, peaceful group that opposed us instead of taking on the sometimes violent and scary (apparently) minorities that really made it pass.

Looj, if gays were suddenly the majority we'd know it is a choice, since the gay rights movement likes to claim it's a biological difference that exists in about 6% of the population across space and time. If they are correct, 6% who generally don't breed will never ever be a majority. If they are incorrect, they can choose to be straight and marry.

"If they are correct, 6% who generally don't breed will never ever be a majority." momof3

Not necessarily so. If it's a recessive gene, a minority of straight people who reproduce could give birth to multiple gay offspring. If gay offspring give their time, money and other resources toward raising their nieces and nephews, some of who may carry the recessive gay gene, then the gay gene is supported in being carried forward. This scenario is highly unlikely, but still possible.

"Also, for a brother and sister, the exact same alternatives to natural reproduction (adoption, sperm/egg donors)are available as are available to gay or infertile couples.

Either maintain a consistent position -- or be a hypocrite".

Yeah, and you're going to keep two married people of the opposite sex from procreating? Will the government have to pay for birth control too? What if it fails?

Your argument is absurd. Everyone (except for sexual abusers) views incest as disgusting and unwise, not to mention terrible for children. That is not the case with homosexuality. The growing majority does not view it negatively anymore.

This is going to happen, folks. My daughter is 14 and almost nobody in her generation views gays or gay coupling as unusual or negative. They talk about it as if it's the most natural thing in the world - "so and so is gay...so and so is bi..." They're all friends and supportive of each other, gay or straight, and it just doesn't matter.

That would never have happened when I was her age. Gays were in the closet then, especially in high school.

So, the view of homosexuality is changing, and the laws eventually will too. Our laws can reflect public opinion. They do not have to be uniformly applied to every group.

If the view of incest changes to something similarly positive, then it might be comparable, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

"And perro your an idiot, society did not have the right to define marrige as only between members of the same race, why should it with sex?"

And luglp, you're a complete and utter moron if you can't see the difference between race and gender.

"It differs because we are :

1. Not expecting the court to overrule the majority who has spoken via their voting rights

and

2. not throwing tempter tantrums right now in street "

I know, I know, it reminds me of those wackos who demonstrate in the street outside abortion clinics or try to get restrictive anti-choice legislation introduced. Oh, Mildred. It's all just so sordid.

Do you see thousands of prolifers blocking traffic in the streets in Colorado where that "life begins at conception" ballot failed? Burning medical implements? Beating up old people? No? Alright then.

"Do you see thousands of prolifers blocking traffic in the streets in Colorado where that "life begins at conception" ballot failed? Burning medical implements? Beating up old people? No? Alright then."

Demonstrations aren't illegal, but of course you know that. Traffic was stopped? Call the President! Nuke Fire Island immediately!

As to "beating up old people", I'll trade you one crucifix grab for god knows how many abortion clinic bombings.

I suppose it had to happen sometime.
I'm in complete agreement with Amy : and Flynn too BTW
Dad was an Anglican ( Episcopalean, Church of England ) priest.
Way he explained it, he had a license from the state ( province in his case ) to perform a civil union ( partnership agreement ) and one from the church to perform a Holy Sacrament : which happened more or less together but from two separate authorities.
Miscalled 'gays' have a need and right for legal services which is comparable to what is available for everybody else : simply by virtue of being members of society.
No mystery - no greater a change than school integration - and no excitement necessary.
It should be unremarkable. That it isn't is as much a testimony to stupidity as piousness.