Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage.

Not by SB377
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it. Statutory requirements of contract law which have always existed will still exist, have nothing to do with what the state formally recognizes or sanctions in an official capacity. Yes, they will still have to perform divorces for gay couples... that is not the State recognizing gay marriage.

The problem is, you are trying to take this from one extreme to another. You are claiming that anything short of completely ignoring something and acting like it doesn't exist, constitutes recognition. The State is bound to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, including contractual law, including contractual law from other states. That is NOT THE ISSUE! The State was obligated to do this BEFORE gay marriage! It's impossible for them to pass ANY legislation to absolve themselves from this obligation.

To Boss Man and all of those who still insist that government can be divorced from marriage, this is the reason why it is not happening. The real issue is not whether or not there is a right to marry, it is about equal protection under the law, as well as religious discrimination. Feel free to comment:

So far we have established two things on this thread:

1. The legal question of same sex marriage is settled, at least for now
   
   
2. Most or all of those who were pushing to get government out of marriage before Obergefell, and continue to now are doing so for the purpose of thwarting government recognition of same sex marriage

Now the question on the table is “Can government from a strictly legal standpoint actually abolish legal marriage? To put it differently, do people have a “right to marriage?” under the constitution? Now, we know that while there is no mention of marriage in the constitution or any of the amendments, the SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” in cases that sought to secure the rights of individual couples to marry, where the states sought to exclude them for various reasons. But are those rulings the same as saying that marriage generally speaking is a right? I will concede that the answer is probably not. But, don’t start dancing for joy just yet

The fact is, that while you might be able to question the right to marriage, you cannot you cannot question the right to be treated equally and as long as some people are allowed to marry and reap the benefits of it, then others must also be allowed to marry- in the absence of a compelling government interest in preventing a particular group of class of people from doing so. That my friends is the rub-getting from where we are now, to a point where no one is able to marry nationwide or, at minimum, where everyone is treated equally by the federal government regardless of marital status in any particular state.

To do that, and thus avoid running afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment one of two things would have to happen. 1) All states would have to simultaneously end legal marriage-including the marriages that are already in place- so as everyone, regardless of their home state would be equally deprived of federal benefits or 2) the federal government would have to end all of the benefits of marriage. In either case, it would result in no one being able to say that they are being treated unequally either by their state or by the federal government.

Now let’s consider the first scenario more closely. How exactly is that going to happen? I contend that it can’t Common sense will tell you that 50 states are not going to coordinate such legislation, even if there were popular support to do so, which there would not be. You might say that it could be enacted on the federal level-perhaps as a constitutional amendment banning all marriage. However, that is equally unlikely to happen. In addition, it is the same people who screamed about federal medaling in states affairs when it was about same sex marriage, are likely to have a problem with this as well-the ultimate act of melding.

And, what is to be done about all of the people who are already married? Unless those marriages can be invalidated, you will still have a problem of inequality –between those married people and the ones who wish to marry both for federal and state benefits.

Now for scenario two. Since getting all states to abolish marriage is not practical and most likely not even doable, we turn to the possibility of the abolishing of all federal benefits and all mention of marriage in the tax codes or any other federal legislation. That way people in states that have in fact abolished marriage will not have a case for being treated unequally. That too seems like a real long shot, but perhaps not quite as much as getting all states to abolish marriage and to invalidate existing marriages. However, consider the infamous Washington gridlock when it comes to far less drastic and controversial matters, couples with what is sure to be considerable opposition from those on both the left and the right. It seems to me that anyone pushing either of these proposals would in fact be committing political suicide.

Lastly, there are those who are pushing for state sanctioned unions to be called civil unions. Those folks do not seem to have a problem with government involvement in, and regulation of relationships as long as they are not called “ Marriage” To be married they contend, people would have to go to a religious institution. Let’s think about that. First, you are again running into a problem with federal benefits since the federal government does not recognize civil unions for that purpose. The same would be true of “private contracts. OK, you might be able to get federal laws changed to address that, although it is also a long, long shot and there are many different statutes that would have to be changed.

But even if you were successful, there is another problem not fixable through legislation. That is the religious aspect of it. Many people consider “marriage “ to be more than a religious matter and many more don’t consider it to be religious at all but want to be able to call their union marriage for the status that it conveys and the fact that "marriage" is a term that is universally understood. If it were necessary to submit to a religious institution in order to be married, it’s apparent that non-religious people would have a first Amendment claim for religious discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite apart from all of the other reason’s that I have presented to show why to try to get government out of marriage is an ill-conceived idea, I submit to you that there is no way of doing it without running afoul of the constitution either on the basis of the 14th or the first amendment. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

What has been proposed in Alabama is not an inequity to anyone. You can continue to make arguments that are now obsolete, the argument is over and your side prevailed. The State cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. If there is any benefit, licensing or sanctioning for traditional marriage it now has to also include homosexual marriage.

However.... nothing in our Constitution requires the State to sanction any marriage. Nothing requires the State to offer benefits to married couples. Problems the Federal government may have are not the concern of the State nor is the State obligated to find a remedy for their problems.

 

[Boss]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete. So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.

 

[Montrovant]

Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.

Yes, it will end official state sanctioning and recognition of marriage. The State is not associated with the reasons for contracts between parties. They are required to administer probate according to statutory law regarding contracts between parties, without regard for the reason the contract was made. They've had to do this for over 200 years and will continue to have to do this as a matter of requirement by the Constitution of both the state and federal government.

Thank you so very much for continuing to point out how this in no way violates or interferes with anyone's civil rights. The sooner we can make this law of the land nationwide, the better!

How do you explain, then, that every law regarding marriage, other than the issuance of licenses, would remain the same? How do you explain common law marriages, which are recognized by the state of Alabama and require no license? Do you think that the state only recognizes things which are licensed? Do you think that marriages which require licenses are not a form of contract law?

Perhaps most importantly, do you think heterosexuals will be accepting of losing the state benefits of marriage and the ease of entering into legal marriage that now exist? Do you believe there is enough anti-SSM sentiment that people would be willing to completely change the nature of civil marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

He has gay friends- some of his best friends are gay.

He just thinks it would be better if Americans stopped treating gays equally legally.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?

I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.

Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.

So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage.

Not by SB377
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it. Statutory requirements of contract law which have always existed will still exist, have nothing to do with what the state formally recognizes or sanctions in an official capacity. Yes, they will still have to perform divorces for gay couples... that is not the State recognizing gay marriage.

The problem is, you are trying to take this from one extreme to another. You are claiming that anything short of completely ignoring something and acting like it doesn't exist, constitutes recognition. The State is bound to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, including contractual law, including contractual law from other states. That is NOT THE ISSUE! The State was obligated to do this BEFORE gay marriage! It's impossible for them to pass ANY legislation to absolve themselves from this obligation.

To Boss Man and all of those who still insist that government can be divorced from marriage, this is the reason why it is not happening. The real issue is not whether or not there is a right to marry, it is about equal protection under the law, as well as religious discrimination. Feel free to comment:

So far we have established two things on this thread:

1. The legal question of same sex marriage is settled, at least for now
   
   
2. Most or all of those who were pushing to get government out of marriage before Obergefell, and continue to now are doing so for the purpose of thwarting government recognition of same sex marriage

Now the question on the table is “Can government from a strictly legal standpoint actually abolish legal marriage? To put it differently, do people have a “right to marriage?” under the constitution? Now, we know that while there is no mention of marriage in the constitution or any of the amendments, the SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” in cases that sought to secure the rights of individual couples to marry, where the states sought to exclude them for various reasons. But are those rulings the same as saying that marriage generally speaking is a right? I will concede that the answer is probably not. But, don’t start dancing for joy just yet

The fact is, that while you might be able to question the right to marriage, you cannot you cannot question the right to be treated equally and as long as some people are allowed to marry and reap the benefits of it, then others must also be allowed to marry- in the absence of a compelling government interest in preventing a particular group of class of people from doing so. That my friends is the rub-getting from where we are now, to a point where no one is able to marry nationwide or, at minimum, where everyone is treated equally by the federal government regardless of marital status in any particular state.

To do that, and thus avoid running afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment one of two things would have to happen. 1) All states would have to simultaneously end legal marriage-including the marriages that are already in place- so as everyone, regardless of their home state would be equally deprived of federal benefits or 2) the federal government would have to end all of the benefits of marriage. In either case, it would result in no one being able to say that they are being treated unequally either by their state or by the federal government.

Now let’s consider the first scenario more closely. How exactly is that going to happen? I contend that it can’t Common sense will tell you that 50 states are not going to coordinate such legislation, even if there were popular support to do so, which there would not be. You might say that it could be enacted on the federal level-perhaps as a constitutional amendment banning all marriage. However, that is equally unlikely to happen. In addition, it is the same people who screamed about federal medaling in states affairs when it was about same sex marriage, are likely to have a problem with this as well-the ultimate act of melding.

And, what is to be done about all of the people who are already married? Unless those marriages can be invalidated, you will still have a problem of inequality –between those married people and the ones who wish to marry both for federal and state benefits.

Now for scenario two. Since getting all states to abolish marriage is not practical and most likely not even doable, we turn to the possibility of the abolishing of all federal benefits and all mention of marriage in the tax codes or any other federal legislation. That way people in states that have in fact abolished marriage will not have a case for being treated unequally. That too seems like a real long shot, but perhaps not quite as much as getting all states to abolish marriage and to invalidate existing marriages. However, consider the infamous Washington gridlock when it comes to far less drastic and controversial matters, couples with what is sure to be considerable opposition from those on both the left and the right. It seems to me that anyone pushing either of these proposals would in fact be committing political suicide.

Lastly, there are those who are pushing for state sanctioned unions to be called civil unions. Those folks do not seem to have a problem with government involvement in, and regulation of relationships as long as they are not called “ Marriage” To be married they contend, people would have to go to a religious institution. Let’s think about that. First, you are again running into a problem with federal benefits since the federal government does not recognize civil unions for that purpose. The same would be true of “private contracts. OK, you might be able to get federal laws changed to address that, although it is also a long, long shot and there are many different statutes that would have to be changed.

But even if you were successful, there is another problem not fixable through legislation. That is the religious aspect of it. Many people consider “marriage “ to be more than a religious matter and many more don’t consider it to be religious at all but want to be able to call their union marriage for the status that it conveys and the fact that "marriage" is a term that is universally understood. If it were necessary to submit to a religious institution in order to be married, it’s apparent that non-religious people would have a first Amendment claim for religious discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite apart from all of the other reason’s that I have presented to show why to try to get government out of marriage is an ill-conceived idea, I submit to you that there is no way of doing it without running afoul of the constitution either on the basis of the 14th or the first amendment. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.

What has been proposed in Alabama is not an inequity to anyone. You can continue to make arguments that are now obsolete, the argument is over and your side prevailed. The State cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. If there is any benefit, licensing or sanctioning for traditional marriage it now has to also include homosexual marriage.

However.... nothing in our Constitution requires the State to sanction any marriage. Nothing requires the State to offer benefits to married couples. Problems the Federal government may have are not the concern of the State nor is the State obligated to find a remedy for their problems.

Equal protection under the law Mr. Boss Man Sir. Is you reading comprehension really that poor or is it your understanding of the constitution. If Alabama really did end legal marriage, they would be depriving their people of the federal benefits that those in other states have. And, unless they invalidated ALL existing marriages, there would be inequality between those currently married people and those who want to get married . That is pretty damned simple.

 

[Syriusly]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity.

Despite every single court case that resulted in the over turning of bans on gay marriage being 'driven' by homosexual couples who wanted the right to legally marry their partner- just like my wife and I are married.

You have a rich imagination, that doesn't let facts get in your way.

 

[Montrovant]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete. So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.

Can you show where the proposed bill, or any other legislative proposal, would remove benefits or perks for married people? The bill from Alabama seemed to pretty clearly state the opposite. Why do you think some hypothetical future bill(s) would remove all benefits or perks?

Do you think comparing marriage to dog ownership is going to make a resonant point with many people?

 

[Syriusly]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete. So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.

No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer heterosexuals or homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage.

Eventually Boss could manage to kill marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.

Yes, it will end official state sanctioning and recognition of marriage. The State is not associated with the reasons for contracts between parties. They are required to administer probate according to statutory law regarding contracts between parties, without regard for the reason the contract was made. They've had to do this for over 200 years and will continue to have to do this as a matter of requirement by the Constitution of both the state and federal government.

Thank you so very much for continuing to point out how this in no way violates or interferes with anyone's civil rights. The sooner we can make this law of the land nationwide, the better!

How do you explain, then, that every law regarding marriage, other than the issuance of licenses, would remain the same? How do you explain common law marriages, which are recognized by the state of Alabama and require no license? Do you think that the state only recognizes things which are licensed? Do you think that marriages which require licenses are not a form of contract law?

Perhaps most importantly, do you think heterosexuals will be accepting of losing the state benefits of marriage and the ease of entering into legal marriage that now exist? Do you believe there is enough anti-SSM sentiment that people would be willing to completely change the nature of civil marriage?

He doesn't. His entire argument is just imaginary nonsense. He's even abandoning reference to SB377 now, as it doesn't say anything he does.

Boss genuinely has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete. So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.

Can you show where the proposed bill, or any other legislative proposal, would remove benefits or perks for married people? The bill from Alabama seemed to pretty clearly state the opposite. Why do you think some hypothetical future bill(s) would remove all benefits or perks?[/QUOTE

Boss shows over and over he has quite the imagination when it comes to marriage and the law.

Can you show where the proposed bill, or any other legislative proposal, would remove benefits or perks for married people? The bill from Alabama seemed to pretty clearly state the opposite. Why do you think some hypothetical future bill(s) would remove all benefits or perks?[/QUOTE

Boss shows over and over he has quite the imagination when it comes to marriage and the law.

 

[Skylar]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete. So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.

Can you show where the proposed bill, or any other legislative proposal, would remove benefits or perks for married people? The bill from Alabama seemed to pretty clearly state the opposite. Why do you think some hypothetical future bill(s) would remove all benefits or perks?

Do you think comparing marriage to dog ownership is going to make a resonant point with many people?

Ah, but he's not talking about the proposed bill (now). He's talking about an imaginary bill that doesn't exist. And its the imaginary one that does everything he claims.

See how that works? Its the perfect circle of bullshit. Where Boss cites his imagination as evidence. And laughably...

...believes it is.

 

[Skylar]

Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.

Yes, it will end official state sanctioning and recognition of marriage.

Nope. The state still recognizes marriage, still recognizes a contact of marriage as legal record of marriage, still has that record of marriage filed with the Health Department of Alabama. With all the same marriage laws applying.

That's not the end of the recognition of marriage. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Thank you for again putting the 'pseudo' in 'pseudo-legal gibberish'.

 

[Skylar]

You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.

How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies?

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage.

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.

Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!

No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete.

Save of course that SB377 doesn't do any of that. All the same marriage laws apply. The only difference is how marriage is entered into. A contract of marriage under SB377 rather than a license of marriage.

All the nonsense about Alabama 'no longer recognizing marriage', and the 'sanctioning of marriage', and the 'killing homosexual marriage' babble you've offered us?

That's just bullshit you made up. Its no where in SB377. You're simply not informed enough to discuss this topic intelligently.

So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

 

[Boss]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

 

[Skylar]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

 

[Boss]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

Nope, I don't see how that works. I know that if the State of Alabama is not issuing licenses for gay marriages they aren't sanctioning them. I never claimed they could refuse to acknowledge contractual or statutory laws regarding legal instruments from other states.

You keep making up nonsense that is unconstitutional, then claiming that I have said it's in this bill, then waving the bill around to proclaim the stuff I never said isn't in the bill. I really don't know what the point of that is unless you're just trying to intentionally mislead people regarding my position.

Now we have to realize, the bill Alabama will pass to remove the State from sanctioning marriages is not the ONLY bill the State of Alabama can ever pass. Other bills can be passed to remove "marriage" from the lexicon of state business. Benefits or tax breaks afforded to "married" couples can be changed. There is nothing preventing that.

 

[Boss]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

 

[Skylar]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

Nope, I don't see how that works. I know that if the State of Alabama is not issuing licenses for gay marriages they aren't sanctioning them.

SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.

SB377 does cite the contract of marriage, that contract of marriage being a legal record of marriage, and that contract of marriage being held at the Department of Health. The same place marriage licenses are stored now. With SB377 indicating that no marriage laws are changed beyond this switch from licenses to contract.

Just obliterating all the silly shit you've been shilling about how Alabama will 'not recognize marriage'. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You've never even read SB377.

You're literally arguing your imagination.

I never claimed they could refuse to acknowledge contractual or statutory laws regarding legal instruments from other states.

Oh, I believe you. But this Boss fella? He says you're a fucking liar.

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Um, of course you were laughably wrong. None of the marriage laws change under SB377 save the method of entering a marriage. Says who? Says SB377, of course!

This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

So there will be no laws to accommodate marriage ....except for EVERY law on the books accommodating marriage. As none of them changed save on how marriage was entered.

Sigh.....do you ever think to fact check the silly shit you say?

You keep making up nonsense that is unconstitutional, then claiming that I have said it's in this bill, then waving the bill around to proclaim the stuff I never said isn't in the bill. I really don't know what the point of that is unless you're just trying to intentionally mislead people regarding my position.

I keep quoting you. And I keep quoting the bill. See above. Your problem is...they have nothing to do with each other.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

Yeah, but what you're describing doesn't actually exist. There's not a single perk removed. There's not a single law changed except 'contracts' in place of 'licenses'. And Alabama still recognizes marriages.

So the 'argument' you've moved onto....is pseudo-legal gibberish. Either that or a hallucination. It simply doesn't exist in the actual bill.