Rosie gets married
- Thread starter Delw
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
Michael,
Then what is this topic about? The subject is Rosie getting married, and she did it as a political statement to Bush. I think the the whole national topic is brought up as a State's Rights issue and an issue about government intrusion into people's lives. I think that is what Cali and I were discussing.
If you listen to Mayor Newsom, he believes his California Constitution prohibits him from discriminating against any of his citizens, so he feels he can issue the licenses. The San Francisco mayor sued the state last week on grounds that California's marriage laws violate the state constitution's equal-protection clause.
And today, in the third time in 2 weeks that this issue has been challenged in court, the court ruled against the bible bangers who are worried about the fall of the Empire into a pit of amoral behaviour.
I am not sure why you turned it into a anti-homosexual topic.
beardown
New member
Washington, you must know my soon to be ex-wife! Does'nt everybody know that the only reason why Bush came out and said that, is because his secretary of education called the teachers union a terroists organization the day before? He knew he had to take that off the front of the papers!
Does'nt everybody know that the only reason why Bush came out and said that, is because his secretary of education called the teachers union a terroists organization the day before? He knew he had to take that off the front of the papers!
Calif. Hunter
Active member
If you go back to Del's first post, and he started the topic - it was anti-homosexual and not at all about State's rights. You brought that up, ElkGunner. And why does changing one's mind about one thing suddenly became "flip-flopping" on everything? And why does a person who may be "anti-state's rights issues" on one topic become anti-state;s rights on everything. It sophomoric to over-generalize like that in a debate. "Oh, you don't want to marry a black person, so you are a bigot!" "You don't like Jennings pistols so you are an anti-gunner."
JoseCuervo
New member
Cali,
I guess we'll have to see what Del says his intent was. I was giving him credit for an intelligent topic on gay marriage and the rights associated with that. I did not think he was starting a homophobic rant. If you look at his posts, he brings up the topic of insurance rates, adoption rights, and judges/lawyers. April brings up property ownership.
If you look through the rest of the posts in this thread, there are the ones that have intelligent insight and opinions (mostly mine ) on the issue confronting the Nation, and then there are the "Ewwww, I don't like gays" posts. The latter aren't very interesting to discuss. But the ones on the politics are more interesting.
Cali,
I don't see Bush "changing his mind" as a minor issue. Was he "changing his mind" on gay marriage, or was he "changing his mind" on the division of issues between Federal and States? I have always thought the GOP was advocating more local control, more State's rights. And Bush Flip-Flopping on State's Rights seems like a betrayl to his 2000 voters.
This whole debate is great theatre, and I don't see why you would want to have the Federal Gov't intruding in your life. Why would you want the Federal Govt to tell you who you can marry? Shouldn't that be a State's issue? What is the harm if Calif decides to allow gays to marry? What is the harm if Utah allows 1 man to marry 6 wimmin? What is the harm if Kentucky allows cousins to marry? What is the harm if Montana allows men to marry sheep?
Those are all common lifestyles in some areas, and although they don't "float my boat", why should I impose my values on people in Salt Lake, SF, Bozeman, or Louisville? Why should the Federal gov't protect these people from themselves?
We allow states to decide if we can have "immoral" Legalized Prostitution. We allow the "evil" sin of gambling to be decided on a state by state basis. We allow alcohol sales laws to be decided at a local level. Hell, we even allow Gun Control at a local level.
I guess we'll have to see what Del says his intent was. I was giving him credit for an intelligent topic on gay marriage and the rights associated with that. I did not think he was starting a homophobic rant. If you look at his posts, he brings up the topic of insurance rates, adoption rights, and judges/lawyers. April brings up property ownership.
If you look through the rest of the posts in this thread, there are the ones that have intelligent insight and opinions (mostly mine
) on the issue confronting the Nation, and then there are the "Ewwww, I don't like gays" posts. The latter aren't very interesting to discuss. But the ones on the politics are more interesting.Cali,
I don't see Bush "changing his mind" as a minor issue. Was he "changing his mind" on gay marriage, or was he "changing his mind" on the division of issues between Federal and States? I have always thought the GOP was advocating more local control, more State's rights. And Bush Flip-Flopping on State's Rights seems like a betrayl to his 2000 voters.
This whole debate is great theatre, and I don't see why you would want to have the Federal Gov't intruding in your life. Why would you want the Federal Govt to tell you who you can marry? Shouldn't that be a State's issue? What is the harm if Calif decides to allow gays to marry? What is the harm if Utah allows 1 man to marry 6 wimmin? What is the harm if Kentucky allows cousins to marry? What is the harm if Montana allows men to marry sheep?
We allow states to decide if we can have "immoral" Legalized Prostitution. We allow the "evil" sin of gambling to be decided on a state by state basis. We allow alcohol sales laws to be decided at a local level. Hell, we even allow Gun Control at a local level.
Whiskers
New member
I think this topic should be moved to Sportsmans Issues, and we could go back to having fun in Fireside.
JoseCuervo
New member
April,
I thought we allowed each state to set the "laws" for getting married. That is why some states have an age of consent for marriage that is incredibly low (maybe 14 or 12, maybe in Arkansas??). And other states like Nevada allow same day weddings as licenses.
And I think I just read about some "Defense of Marriage Act" (1996???) that addressed the portability of marriages, and the recognition between states.
Again, it seem if some guy wants to marry his sheep up in Montana, he should be able to, but if Idaho doesn't recognize unions between a man and a sheep, he would have no rights/benefits if he moved to Idaho.
Ithaca 37
New member
Whiskers, It's too controversial for SI.
muskrat89
New member
I don't think that's true, exactly. I will have to do some research, but I think there is something in the Conctitution, or an amendment, or a judicial interpretation called the Good faith & Credit or Fair Faith & Credit which requires State Governemnts to recognize other States. I first heard of this in when California was going to offer drivers licenses to illegals, and other states (CO was one) said they wouldn't recognize them...
muskrat89
New member
"Article IV, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution
which provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of
every other State."
Found it
which provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of
every other State."
Found it
Gunner46
Well-known member
How come ya NEVER hear about a Talaban terrorist bombing in San Freak-sisco? 
Maybe, they're sitting back and letting us destroy ourselves!
Even though I'll crack a joke about my Ex, whenever I get the chance, I still respect the sanctity of a HETRO marraige. This Gay crap is just going down the wrong road!!
Maybe, they're sitting back and letting us destroy ourselves!
Even though I'll crack a joke about my Ex, whenever I get the chance, I still respect the sanctity of a HETRO marraige. This Gay crap is just going down the wrong road!!
beardown
New member
Gunner the apple doesnt fall to far from the tree, being that you are in Idaho! I'am shocked and hurt over your accusations that men from Montana would want to marry their sheep, everbody knows that sheep cant cook, so what would be the point in marrying one? Although much like a wedding dress their coat would match the new appliances!
I for one think sheep know their place in society unlike gays. Sheep dont go around flaunting their stuff, ramming the truth down lonely wives throats! Sheep still prefer to be indescrete and hide their sexuality from public display. No sheep know that their home is on the range where the Eu's the cowboys get to play. Sheep are so discrete they even accidently get their heads stuck in a fence, all in hope that they have picked the perfect hill to hide behind so that two lovers can engage in acts that others just cant understand. Sheep still hold their heads up high even though they know that they are treated like nothing more than a cheap two dollar whore. Yet they go through life living in a dark society that condemns them for what they are, but you dont here them complaning or sueing for their rights.
muskrat89
New member
I will say that instinctively, I am against same-sex marriages. I believe in tolerance, but don't think I have to condone things I don't agree with.
That being said - I wonder what is more harmful, in the end, to the "institution of marriage" - the relatively small number of gays that get married, or the 50% plus divorce rate that we are seeing in hetero marriages.
On a philisophical point, if we can allow 2 men or women to wed, how can we then say no to polygamists, or "animal lovers" or, child marriages? I know those last 2 may be extreme, but if society can't define marriage, who will?
That being said - I wonder what is more harmful, in the end, to the "institution of marriage" - the relatively small number of gays that get married, or the 50% plus divorce rate that we are seeing in hetero marriages.
On a philisophical point, if we can allow 2 men or women to wed, how can we then say no to polygamists, or "animal lovers" or, child marriages? I know those last 2 may be extreme, but if society can't define marriage, who will?
That is not true. If the gene is recessive, to heterosexual carriers of the gene have a 1/4 chance of having a gay gene. The gene could also be passed along if it doesn't manifest itself until after reproductive age is reached. This is shown with MS (I think that's it) where it keeps getting passed along because those with the disorder don't know they have it until they've already had kids. FWIW, I seriously doubt it is all in the genes.
IMO, there should not be any tax breaks for having children anyway. That's like giving me a tax break for being fat...each are a lifestyle choice that I make.
JoseCuervo
New member
The other thing that is a bit troubling by all of this is Dubya thinking we should have a Constitutional Ammendment that explicitly is intended to DENY rights to some portion of the Citizens.
I would probably have to read all of them, but I think all of the other Ammendments that address "Rights" are granting Rights. We did try to remove Rights in the Constitution with Prohibition in the early part of the last Century, but we eventually repealed it.
Is this really a path we want to head down in Society, where we have a Majority passing Ammendments denying rights to a Minority population? Given that the Majority of the US does not hunt (I think that is the current status), I would be nervous to see a lot of "activist" sponsored ammendments that could remove hunting rights.
I would probably have to read all of them, but I think all of the other Ammendments that address "Rights" are granting Rights. We did try to remove Rights in the Constitution with Prohibition in the early part of the last Century, but we eventually repealed it.
Is this really a path we want to head down in Society, where we have a Majority passing Ammendments denying rights to a Minority population? Given that the Majority of the US does not hunt (I think that is the current status), I would be nervous to see a lot of "activist" sponsored ammendments that could remove hunting rights.
Elkgunner,
Marriage needs to be handled by Federal law so that the marriages and divorces are recognised in all states.
If a gay couple is married in a state that it is lawful, then moves to a state where it's not lawful the marriage would not be recognized and the couple would not be married.
AprilW
Marriage needs to be handled by Federal law so that the marriages and divorces are recognised in all states.
If a gay couple is married in a state that it is lawful, then moves to a state where it's not lawful the marriage would not be recognized and the couple would not be married.
AprilW
hogwild
New member
I could really care less about Dubya and what all the polictical hubbub this is causing. The main thing to me is that God put a lot of effort into the reproductive system. It is a big insult to God to...well, peg A goes in hole B, not hole C. My younger brother is gay and my neighbors are gay. It is hard enough to explain their relationships to my children, now I have to explain Mr. and ... uhh ... Mr. So and So. My brother, his partner, and my neighbors know where I stand on this issue and they do not ask anymore because they know they will get an earful (calm and collected) without apology which they do not like.
The more we try to rationalize this, this stupider it sounds.
The more we try to rationalize this, this stupider it sounds.
imported_Bill
New member
Gays, Lawyers,Illegal Hispanics cant tell much differance, open a hunting season. One of each per day.
P
pawclaws
Guest
Man am I ever surprised at you guys. The one thing and one thing only that tightens my jaws here is that a small group of people who elect a particular life style are demanding that they not only be treated as a self defined minority group but also as the majority and redefine or break existing laws in the process to cater to their perverted whims! Yes perverted; but, God gives us all the choice so I guess I can't take it away; even from these sick @#@!$%^!!
