MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

[M14 Shooter]

correct, and state laws can be written that say that any such contracts are valid, without ever mentioning the word marriage.

And thus, the state is involved.

But not with marriage, not in my plan. Under my plan , a man and a woman could choose to marry or not, and still share benefits , and privileges or what have you via a contract recognized by the state...

And so, the state recgionizes the relationship, or the marriage, as the case may be.

As soon as you place legal constructs into the institution of marriage, there's no way for the state to not be involved.

 

[Gadawg73]

The prohibition by a state of plural marriage, for example, is constitutional because it applies to all, regardless of race, gender, etc. To single out a specific group of persons and exclude them from marriage – homosexuals, in this case – is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment per Lawrence.

Everyone isn’t subject to the same ‘restrictions,’ as gays aren’t allow to marry.

Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are under the exact same restrictions:
-Everyone can marry a member of the opposite gender; no one may marry a member of the same gender.
Thus, there is no discrimination against homosexuals; the restriction applies to all, regardless of race, gender, etc.

Negros and Caucasians are under the same restrictions:
-Everyone can marry a member of their own race; no one can marry a member of another race.
Thus, there is no discrimination against Negros or Caucasians, the restriction applies to all, regardless of gender, age, etc.

 

[TheBrain]

And thus, the state is involved.

But not with marriage, not in my plan. Under my plan , a man and a woman could choose to marry or not, and still share benefits , and privileges or what have you via a contract recognized by the state...

And so, the state recgionizes the relationship, or the marriage, as the case may be.

As soon as you place legal constructs into the institution of marriage, there's no way for the state to not be involved.

I'm going to be nice here and assume you just don't understand what I'm saying. I propose NO legal constructs on marriage. ANYONE can get married if they find someone willing to give them a marriage certificate. NO ONE needs SHIT from the state to certify that they are married. The state acts properly and butts out of marriage completely.

Clear enough now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But not with marriage, not in my plan. Under my plan , a man and a woman could choose to marry or not, and still share benefits , and privileges or what have you via a contract recognized by the state...

And so, the state recgionizes the relationship, or the marriage, as the case may be.

As soon as you place legal constructs into the institution of marriage, there's no way for the state to not be involved.

I'm going to be nice here and assume you just don't understand what I'm saying. I propose NO legal constructs on marriage. ANYONE can get married if they find someone willing to give them a marriage certificate. NO ONE needs SHIT from the state to certify that they are married. The state acts properly and butts out of marriage completely.

Clear enough now.

Yes... but you apparently continue to fail to see that, as soon as you introduce things into marriage that can only be granted/enforced by the state, what you want to do is impossible.

 

[TheBrain]

And so, the state recgionizes the relationship, or the marriage, as the case may be.

As soon as you place legal constructs into the institution of marriage, there's no way for the state to not be involved.

I'm going to be nice here and assume you just don't understand what I'm saying. I propose NO legal constructs on marriage. ANYONE can get married if they find someone willing to give them a marriage certificate. NO ONE needs SHIT from the state to certify that they are married. The state acts properly and butts out of marriage completely.

Clear enough now.

Yes... but you apparently continue to fail to see that, as soon as you introduce things into marriage that can only be granted/enforced by the state, what you want to do is impossible.

What am I introducing into a marriage that is granted by the state? I am suggesting that laws are changed to meet the new policy of government butting out of marriage. For example, right now you can file taxes as filing married jointly. I would propose that it be changed to just filing jointly. Who cares if two people are married or not to receive that benefit? As for death benefits, I should be able to sign them over to whomever I would like, married or not. They are MY benefits, I earned them. Etc etc etc, right on down the line. Even welfare could simply boil down to provide proof that you reside together. Don't care if you're married.

of course all such things would have to be regulated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What am I introducing into a marriage that is granted by the state?

Many things have been brought up - state retirement benefis, etc.
You can have a private contract that says your spouse gets your benefits, but unless the state allows this, it is meaningless. Thus, the state needs to be involved.

of course all such things would have to be regulated.

By... the state.

The legal benefits of marriage are the entire reason for the stink from homosexuals regarding marriage.

 

[TheBrain]

What am I introducing into a marriage that is granted by the state?

Many things have been brought up - state retirement benefis, etc.
You can have a private contract that says your spouse gets your benefits, but unless the state allows this, it is meaningless. Thus, the state needs to be involved.

of course all such things would have to be regulated.

By... the state.

The legal benefits of marriage are the entire reason for the stink from homosexuals regarding marriage.

You're just not groking what I am saying. I would stipulate that all benefits currently available to married couples would be available to all couples regardless of marital status. PERIOD. The only regulating would be the government making sure there was no fraud.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What am I introducing into a marriage that is granted by the state?

Many things have been brought up - state retirement benefis, etc.
You can have a private contract that says your spouse gets your benefits, but unless the state allows this, it is meaningless. Thus, the state needs to be involved.

of course all such things would have to be regulated.

By... the state.

The legal benefits of marriage are the entire reason for the stink from homosexuals regarding marriage.

You're just not groking what I am saying. I would stipulate that all benefits currently available to married couples would be available to all couples regardless of marital status. PERIOD.

Oh wow.
Define "couples".

The only regulating would be the government making sure there was no fraud.

And there would be a LOT of that.

 

[Qball]

Totally unbiased article there.

 

[TheBrain]

Many things have been brought up - state retirement benefis, etc.
You can have a private contract that says your spouse gets your benefits, but unless the state allows this, it is meaningless. Thus, the state needs to be involved.


By... the state.

The legal benefits of marriage are the entire reason for the stink from homosexuals regarding marriage.

You're just not groking what I am saying. I would stipulate that all benefits currently available to married couples would be available to all couples regardless of marital status. PERIOD.

Oh wow.
Define "couples".

The only regulating would be the government making sure there was no fraud.

And there would be a LOT of that.

What's to define? Couple meaning two people. PERIOD.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're just not groking what I am saying. I would stipulate that all benefits currently available to married couples would be available to all couples regardless of marital status. PERIOD.

Oh wow.
Define "couples".

The only regulating would be the government making sure there was no fraud.

And there would be a LOT of that.

What's to define? Couple meaning two people. PERIOD.

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh wow.
Define "couples".


And there would be a LOT of that.

What's to define? Couple meaning two people. PERIOD.

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

 

[TheBrain]

What's to define? Couple meaning two people. PERIOD.

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

Oh, he knows they aren't relevant and he isn't trying to be relevant, instead he proves that those who fight for gay marriage are more interested in destroying the religious ceremony of marriage than they are of obtaining equal rights for anyone.

 

[Gadawg73]

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

Oh, he knows they aren't relevant and he isn't trying to be relevant, instead he proves that those who fight for gay marriage are more interested in destroying the religious ceremony of marriage than they are of obtaining equal rights for anyone.

I have been married 35 years.
How does gay marriage destroy the religous ceremony of my son getting married to a woman in a few months?
How does gay marriage AFFECT ANYONE'S MARRIAGE?
How would gay marriage affect your marriage?
How am I more interested in destroying the religous ceremony of marriage when I am for obtaining equal rights for anyone?
Are you a damn psychic?
Gay marriage has no affect on anyone's marriage or stops or affects any religous ceremony anywhere. Not one, ever.

 

[TheBrain]

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

Oh, he knows they aren't relevant and he isn't trying to be relevant, instead he proves that those who fight for gay marriage are more interested in destroying the religious ceremony of marriage than they are of obtaining equal rights for anyone.

I have been married 35 years.
How does gay marriage destroy the religous ceremony of my son getting married to a woman in a few months?
How does gay marriage AFFECT ANYONE'S MARRIAGE?
How would gay marriage affect your marriage?
How am I more interested in destroying the religous ceremony of marriage when I am for obtaining equal rights for anyone?
Are you a damn psychic?
Gay marriage has no affect on anyone's marriage or stops or affects any religous ceremony anywhere. Not one, ever.

Hey, I agree with you. But MANY people view it as a direct attack on heterosexual marriages, and many know that and attack for that reason and that reason only. I mean people do that kind of thing on a variety of subjects, why would this one be any different?

 

[George Costanza]

Hey, I agree with you. But MANY people view it as a direct attack on heterosexual marriages, and many know that and attack for that reason and that reason only. I mean people do that kind of thing on a variety of subjects, why would this one be any different?

Glad you agree that gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage.

What does the fact that "many" people view gay marriage as a direct attack on heterosexual marriage have to do with anything? "Many" people think President Obama is a terrorist. "Many" people thought that segregation was perfectly OK.

Of course, gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage. How would that work? Do people think that if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexual people are suddenly going to start divorcing their spouses and going over to the gay side of life?

 

[Modbert]

Judge up held the state law.

If they don't like the law, they can work to change it or as Reagan said "vote with thier feet" and move.

Hooray for states rights!

Hooray for states rights trampling on civil liberties? I have never gotten the ideology that as long as it's the state doing it, being big government is somehow okay. Those same people seem only concerned if the federal government is taking a citizen's rights and not the state government.

 

[TheBrain]

Hey, I agree with you. But MANY people view it as a direct attack on heterosexual marriages, and many know that and attack for that reason and that reason only. I mean people do that kind of thing on a variety of subjects, why would this one be any different?

Glad you agree that gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage.

What does the fact that "many" people view gay marriage as a direct attack on heterosexual marriage have to do with anything? "Many" people think President Obama is a terrorist. "Many" people thought that segregation was perfectly OK.

Of course, gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage. How would that work? Do people think that if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexual people are suddenly going to start divorcing their spouses and going over to the gay side of life?

Nice strawmen you threw out there.


The fact of the matter is that MANY in the gay community insist on thrusting their being gay on the rest of us, and would not be satisfied with anything that requires any sort of compromise. If they would we could have some sort of agreement where even though the government didn't call it marriage they could have all the benefits and privileges of marriage. We both know that.

And yes I fully realize that there are also morons on the other side of the issue who wold see any sort of a compromise as being something terribly horrible. I think they are idiots as well.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey, I agree with you. But MANY people view it as a direct attack on heterosexual marriages, and many know that and attack for that reason and that reason only. I mean people do that kind of thing on a variety of subjects, why would this one be any different?

Glad you agree that gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage.

What does the fact that "many" people view gay marriage as a direct attack on heterosexual marriage have to do with anything? "Many" people think President Obama is a terrorist. "Many" people thought that segregation was perfectly OK.

Of course, gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage. How would that work? Do people think that if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexual people are suddenly going to start divorcing their spouses and going over to the gay side of life?

Nice strawmen you threw out there.


The fact of the matter is that MANY in the gay community insist on thrusting their being gay on the rest of us, and would not be satisfied with anything that requires any sort of compromise. If they would we could have some sort of agreement where even though the government didn't call it marriage they could have all the benefits and privileges of marriage. We both know that.

And yes I fully realize that there are also morons on the other side of the issue who wold see any sort of a compromise as being something terribly horrible. I think they are idiots as well.

Many that are denied rights do insist on thrusting on others that they have a right to be who they are.

 

[Gadawg73]

If someone is picketing that they are seking equal rights and someone that comes along that does not want to hear it does that mean that they should immediately cease picketing for their equal rights because a few do not want to hear it?