It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?

It means they would still recognize gay marriages as the legally binding union they are. Now legal in all 50 states, including Alabama should they pass that law.

 

[Boss]

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?

It means they would still recognize gay marriages as the legally binding union they are. Now legal in all 50 states, including Alabama should they pass that law.

They recognize whatever legally binding union they are required to. What other choice do you think they have?

 

[Faun]

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?

It means they would still recognize gay marriages as the legally binding union they are. Now legal in all 50 states, including Alabama should they pass that law.

They recognize whatever legally binding union they are required to. What other choice do you think they have?

I don't believe they have a choice. You're the one claiming they do not have to recognize same-sex marriage since there is nothing they hold.

I'm pointing out the lunacy of that since the state will in fact be holding the marriage contracts.

 

[Montrovant]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain.

Again... What other choice does the State have? Of course the legislation they pass will adhere to federal laws and the Constitution. Why would they pass anything in defiance of that? How could they do it and get away with it?

Because the State of Alabama is operating within the Constitution and federal law, does not mean they endorse or sanction gay marriage in an official capacity. They do not recognize it because there is nothing for them to recognize. They MUST recognize federal laws and the Constitution.

The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license. Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.

No, they would not authorize "marriages" of any kind. That's the point of eliminating the licenses. This eliminates state sanction of gay marriage. If you don't think it changes anything but paperwork and formalities.. good! Sounds like a winner of a plan to me... you're okay with it and I'm okay with it. Why are we arguing?

You speak as though Alabama does not have any laws pertaining to marriage, as though it's all federal. Instead, at least under the bill that was proposed and you have talked about previously, Alabama would still have the same marriage laws it does now had the bill passed, excepting that the manner of entering into a marriage in the state would have changed.

It still would have been Alabama authorizing the same types of marriages it had before the bill. In fact, I'm nearly certain you have had a portion of the bill quoted to you which specifically stated that the participants would be authorized by the state to enter into a marriage. The point of eliminating the licenses seemed to be to avoid Kim Davis like situations where a state employee has a problem issuing a license they must issue as part of their job. You are still promoting this idea that only activities which the state licenses are authorized or endorsed by the state, despite the variety of laws, privileges, and benefits afforded to married couples which would remain even without the licenses, despite the state recognizing unlicensed common law marriages.

That is why this argument continues. You continue to make these bizzare claims about licensing being the only way for states to sanction something, implying that the state will just follow federal law regarding marriage as though there are no state laws regarding marriage, and ignoring that the bill itself stated that no other marriage laws would be changed. It seems like yet more of your personal definition or meaning of words; licensing is the only way by which a state can authorize an activity.

 

[Montrovant]

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?

There are civil marriage contracts and any two people can apply for them.

Under the proposed bill there would still have been civil marriage. It would not have become civil unions, there was no rewording, no changing of the laws governing who can enter into civil marriage nor who gets what benefits or rights through civil marriage.

If you think a future bill will end the granting of civil marriage, that is different. I have to wonder how the courts would deal with that if they are going to consider civil marriage a fundamental right.

 

[playtime]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Again, has nothing to do with the definition.

The definition of "union" is "to join together" as well as a couple of alternative definitions, like a type of pearl. The "meaning" of the word can vary depending on context. Definition and meaning are two different things. You seem to not be able to comprehend that.

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female... a union. They can pretend. We can all pretend. In fact, we can redefine dogs and cats to mean "children" and gay couples can pretend to have all "children" they please. Does that make it the same?

Like I've said, if you want to argue same sex couples deserve tax breaks and benefit of contract in personal property matters, I have no problem with that. If you want to call their relationship a "civil union" ...again, not a problem. But marriage is the union of a male and female, and as such, there has been NO DISCRIMINATION.

Hetero marriages occur all the time even though one spouse is sterile, thereby no children will be produced. Are their marriages any less valid or sanctified because of that?

Should they be 'allowed' to call it a 'marriage' going by your definition of what one is?

 

[playtime]

So we have "real" marriage, and we have "gay" marriage.... like real crab and imitation crab. The SCOTUS can rule they are the same thing but we all know the difference.

So, please explain to the class, how Rush Limbaugh's 4th marriage (after vowing ''till death do us part' 3x before & never producing a single dittohead offspring) is more 'real' than any same sex MARRIAGE?

 

[Pop23]

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

 

[Seawytch]

Even if Alabama does stop issuing marriage licenses, they STILL have to honor marriages performed elsewhere. They will STILL have give the goodies to the gheys. Poor backwards Alabama.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

 

[Faun]

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

Both. Both genders claimed they were prevented from marrying the person they love because of their gender.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

Both. Both genders claimed they were prevented from marrying the person they love because of their gender.

1. No, a sexuality claimed the discrimination. I'm part of that Male gender, a remarkable majority of us claimed no such discrimination

2. You realize, you bolster my contention that same sex siblings have legitimate claim to being discriminated against

 

[Syriusly]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past..

All Boss does when he pontificates like this is demonstrate how ignorant he is.

What would have changed if one justice had voted differently?

The issue would still be left up to the States- and every State whose legislature and voters have made same gender marriage legal- would still continue to be legal. In addition, every state in which the State Supreme Court overturned State bans on same gender marriage(like Massachusetts) would still have same gender marriage.

And finally- California would continue to have same gender marriage. California's case was resolved prior to Obergefel. Of course Boss and his homophobic buddies could try to pass the same Constitutional initiative again- but California now firmly supports the rights of American couples of the same gender to marry.

But- Boss could keep Alabama free to discriminate.

Just as if the Court had never overturned bans on mixed race marriages, Atlanta would have continued to discriminate against mixed race couples for another 25 years.

Only 3 states voted to allow same sex marriage, but I wonder if those three would have if they realized they were bagging the societal safety net?

Why would anyone believe your inane claims? Especially since you are just parroting exactly what the Catholic League said 12 years ago in Massachusetts- which never came to pass.

Why would those states believe a bigot like you now- when they didn't believe the bigots then?

 

[Syriusly]

[
I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.

How do you know. You can tell sexuality via a forum post?

Amazing

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

 

[Syriusly]

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

When both races claim discrimination which race is being discriminated against?

 

[Pop23]

[
I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.

How do you know. You can tell sexuality via a forum post?

Amazing

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

Please quote the post that said that I proposed to end marriage. I contend it will die under its own weight.

Marriage as a legal entity, that does not include a sexual relationship, love or nearly anything else that the government can't simply revoke, is a law destined to fail.

 

[Syriusly]

If you can get enough people to agree..

As I've pointed out, this is what is driving the issue, not the homosexuals. They represent a small minority who wouldn't be able to get diddly-squat done by themselves.

Yeah Boss keeps making this claim- quoting himself, citing himself.

And like always- he ignores the facts.

And the fact is that Obergefell was one of dozens- maybe hundreds of cases of gay couples filing lawsuit demanding that their constitutional right to marry be recognized.

The Supreme Court cases that gives Boss so much Butthurt was driven entirely by homosexuals. The DOMA case was driven by homosexuals.

The California case was driven by homosexuals.

Boss is lying again. Maybe even to himself- but he is lying.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

When both races claim discrimination which race is being discriminated against?

Exactly dummy, that's why these fall under the strict scrutiny test. Race and sexuality are two vastly different things.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.

How do you know. You can tell sexuality via a forum post?

Amazing

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

Please quote the post that said that I proposed to end marriage. I contend it will die under its own weight.

Marriage as a legal entity, that does not include a sexual relationship, love or nearly anything else that the government can't simply revoke, is a law destined to fail.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

A poll reflects how the attitudes of society are changing.

Just as society once considered mixed race marriages 'abnormal' and such couples were shunned by society- so to will some bigots shun homosexuals.

But attitudes change over time- and bigots like Boss are the ones that end up being shunned.