Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[JakeStarkey]

You do note, Marty, that those of us who understand American law and Article III of the Constitution have no problems with the role of courts in civil liberties.

 

[dilloduck]

Kudos to the homosexuals who smashed the definition of marriage. After centuries of it being an institution for one man and one woman the powder is now primed for any definition to be acceptable. The important thing to remember is that people who love each other all should be allowed to be called married and benefit from any right derived from it. Especially the right to sue for divorce.

 

[martybegan]

You do note, Marty, that those of us who understand American law and Article III of the Constitution have no problems with the role of courts in civil liberties.

Only when they give you what you want. Stop pretending to not be a hypocrite.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not denying anyone anything. If polygamists feel that their cases are strong enough to challenge prohibitions on plural marriages, I wish them the best of luck. Their fight, however, is not my fight and has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays. If YOU believe that there is no societal harm in allowing them, it really has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays.

Since you seem to think that plural marriages are inevitable, perhaps you can tell me where this has happened. It's not like gays haven't been marrying for over a decade now legally. Where has any of the slippery slope fallacies you cling to actually come to fruition?

Where plural marriages have happened? Pretty much everywhere man has roamed the Earth. Which is in stark contrast to homosexual marriages which has enjoyed none until very recently. I also don't understand how you can try to intellectualize it away since a bisexual would by definition be attracted to a member of his or her own gender. Why no love for them?

I personally think governments will bail on the issue since it's taken the slippery slope path of least resistance. If a minority can dictate to everyone else what marriage should be then it's just a matter of political pressure. They'll say screw it at some point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.

Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm sure that the Right will continue to beat this dead horse well into the 22nd century, just like they are with ACA, and like they did with the 1950's Civil Rights movement.

"To the rear, MARCH"!

 

[Vandalshandle]

I confess, however, that I kind of like threads like these, where the Right continues to fight the war LONG after the war is over. It serves to remind us that we can, and often do, win battles against those that want us to return to 1950, when being a liberal meant that one had no real problem with Ricky and Lucy sharing a double bed.

 

[Ravi]

I look forward to the Republican party campaigning on polygamy.

 

[Iceweasel]

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.

You can't read. Gay marriages are the slippery slope and there is no bottom, that was the point. The irony is you start with "...falsely believes".

 

[martybegan]

One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.

Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.

Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sure that the Right will continue to beat this dead horse well into the 22nd century, just like they are with ACA, and like they did with the 1950's Civil Rights movement.

"To the rear, MARCH"!

And the "over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings " mentality of progressives is SO much better.

EVER FORWARD (hey there's a cliff up there) FORWARD
(seriously we should at least slow down...) FORRRRWAAARDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!! (splash).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.

You can't read. Gay marriages are the slippery slope and there is no bottom, that was the point. The irony is you start with "...falsely believes".

The semantics are clear, and you are still wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.

Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.

Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.

Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I guess I really am a radical on the issue of marriage. I don't cringe at the idea of polygamy, or, for that matter, incest. I do agree with Ravi that, were we to legalize polygamy, then some of the laws and policies regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of spouses would have to be reworked.

But, ultimately, I really don't give so much as a single flying fuck who is marrying whom. I know that my marriage to my wife is sacred. My marriage to my wife is the second most important relationship in my life (me kids actually come first). My marriage means to me today exactly what it meant to me yesterday, last week, last month, or last year. How someone else chooses to define their marriage(s), and the important people in their lives means absolutely nothing to me.

Personally, I don't know why the supporters of Marriage Equality would suddenly get all skitchy when the question suddenly turns to a type of relationship that they personally find "icky". This is a message to my Progressive friends: Fucking grow a set!!! For fuck's sake! Have the courage of your fucking convictions!

I. Do. Not. CARE!! who other people want to marry, and spend their lives with. This is true of opposite-sex couples. This is true of same-sex couples. This is true of brothers, and sisters. This is true of multiple partners of your choice. So long as we are talking about consenting adults, there is simply no romantic grouping that you can suggest that makes me feel so icky that I am willing to abandon my principle that I have no right to tell other people that they have to behave in their personal lives in accordance with my personal ethics, and morals.

Moving on...

 

[Ravi]

Okay. I guess I really am a radical on the issue of marriage. I don't cringe at the ides of polygamy, or, for that matter, incest. I do agree with Ravi that, were we to legalize polygamy, then some of the laws and policies regarding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of spouses would have to be reworked.

But, ultimately, I really don't give so much as a single flying fuck who is marrying whom. I know that my marriage to my wife is sacred. My marriage to my wife is the second most important relationship in my life (me kids actually come first). My marriage means to me today exactly what it meant to me yesterday, last week, last month, or last year. How someone else chooses to define their marriage(s), and the important people in their lives means absolutely nothing to me.

Personally, I don't know why the supporters of Marriage Equality would suddenly get all skitchy when the question suddenly turns to a type of relationship that they personally find "icky". This is a message to my Progressive friends: Fucking grow a set!!! For fuck's sake! Have the courage of your fucking convictions!

I. Do. Not. CARE!! who other people want to marry, and spend their lives with. This is true of opposite-sex couples. This is true of same-sex couples. This is true of brothers, and sisters. This is true of multiple partners of your choice. So long as we are talking about consenting adults, there is simply no romantic grouping that you can suggest that makes me feel so icky that I am willing to abandon my principle that I have no right to tell other people that they have to behave in their personal lives in accordance with my personal ethics, and morals.

I agree except I do not think "progressives" think polygamy is skitchy. The OP coughed up a strawman argument when he implied that.

Gay people object to the comparison with polygamy, imo, because SSM is not equal to polygamy. Like I pointed out, current marriage law does not have to be changed to "allow" SSM but it would need to be changed to "allow" polygamy.

If someone wants to change the law, that's fine, it is up to them to make the effort.

 

[Katzndogz]

Two person marriages are inherently unfair to bisexuals who will be legally required to choose whether they marry a same sex partner and be gay for life or marry an opposite sex partner and be heterosexual for life. Plural marriages are the only accommodation that gives bisexuals fairness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Katzndogz thinks marriage is about sexuality rather than the love of two people that bind them together.

It is not the sex, it is the love, katzndogz.

 

[Czernobog]

Two person marriages are inherently unfair to bisexuals who will be legally required to choose whether they marry a same sex partner and be gay for life or marry an opposite sex partner and be heterosexual for life. Plural marriages are the only accommodation that gives bisexuals fairness.

Okay. Then, by all means, lobby for that? And your point?

 

[martybegan]

One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.

Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.

Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.

Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.

Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.

Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now.

And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile.

Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?

 

[rightwinger]

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

Awww, not keeping to the talking points you want?

You don't get to define the parameters of the debate

Aren't you the one telling everyone we can't call it marriage equality?