Quoting Lowrider (Reply 149): Allow the various populations to decide what sort of definition of marriage they want to live with.

This is where the problem lies, its a flawed approach to civil liberties.

I don't care how people in my area want to define marriage, and I shouldn't have to. Neither should anyone else. Your comfort is not more important than my rights.

If you can get married, then I should be able to as well. Otherwise, nobody should be able to. Its a simple, bright line upon which this country was built.

Like I've always said before, the government should just exit the business of marriage entirely. You want to get married, your church can do it. Everything else is just a legal contract.

N

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 147): In a nutshell, yes. It is a matter of principle. It is a way for me to say, "I refuse to support this and refuse to give my tax dollars to a state that supports this. If this is what you choose, then do it without me."

I'm just curious, but are there any other issues that you feel this strongly about, so much that they would dictate where you choose to reside?

I think I side with Lowrider on this one. There is a principle behind allowing states to make their own judgments about these things and becoming a "laboratory" for social change.

Let Massachusetts and California allow gay marriage and see what happens. We have all these theories about what is best - civil liberties versus marriage for everyone. But let's see how it plays out.

This social change is going to play out over time. It ain't going to happen in Alabama and South Carolina for some time. So, for the time being, let it be that way. Let's see what happens.

I am with you that the ideal, in terms of civil liberties, is to allow marriage for all consenting adults. But Rome wasn't built in a day. This may very well be the smartest approach.

MBM

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 151): I'm just curious, but are there any other issues that you feel this strongly about, so much that they would dictate where you choose to reside?

Yes. Some I have little choice in because they have been decided federally though. Within the past couple of years, I had a choice of 5 different states to live in. This was partially due to me seeking a new employer, and the commuting priviliges I enjoy. Schools played a large part in our decision, not only the quality, but what is taught. Cost of living was a consideration as well. Taxes also figured highly. My income is the same no matter what the location, but taxes vary widely. Of course we had to look at the ratio of taxation to school spending and quality. State and local politics played a part as well. I read local papers to determine what the issues in the area were and looked at issues such as gun laws (I have a small collection) and property related laws. All of these issues drove our decision. I cannot say if one was more of a deal breaker than the other. I do know that housing prices, taxes, and schools ruled out one state almost immediately. If gay marriage was legalized here tomorrow would I move immediately? Probably not. I would want to wait at least 6 months to make sure it would stick and intelligently consider my options for residence and employment. It would spur me to start my research again, however.

So, really, what you're saying is you want to live somewhere that takes a lax view of freedom?

I bet you can snap up property in Iran or Syria fairly cheaply.

N

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 152): Let Massachusetts and California allow gay marriage and see what happens.

It won’t play out that way though because whoever loses when this case is brought before the California Supreme Court will challenge that ruling with a petition to a Federal Court of Appeals and then the loser there will petition the US Supreme Court.

At some point before too much longer (2-3 years) the US Supreme Court will get this case and it will make a decision one way or another. Obviously that decision will affect all states.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 155): At some point before too much longer (2-3 years) the US Supreme Court will get this case and it will make a decision one way or another. Obviously that decision will affect all states.

How so? How does a decision that is decided by a state supreme court (Massachusetts or California) make its was to the Supreme Court?

Are you sure you know your constitutional law?

From what I understand, it will take quite a bit of contrivance to get an argument heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 156): How so? How does a decision that is decided by a state supreme court (Massachusetts or California) make its was to the Supreme Court? Are you sure you know your constitutional law?

Yes, I'm very sure. Any state case where a constitutional principle is the basis of a decision is subject to jurisdiction by a Federal Court once all state appellate courts have decided the issue. State laws are ultimately subordinate to the US Constitution and constitutionality issues are resolved by Federal Courts.

The Terry Shaivo case is a perfect example. Her parents are petitioning a Federal Appeals Court to rule on the constitutionality of a decision regarding Florida law made by a Florida District Court and upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. The Congress passed legislation last night that gave the parents Legal Standing to petition in Federal Court despite the fact that they are not her legal guardian.

Another good example is the Texas sodomy law from a few years ago.

Lowrider, I appreciate your ability to argue this issue without turning it into a mudslinging contest. Kudos to you for that.

Let me ensure I understand your position:

You support the idea that gay people who get married in Massachusetts, for example, should have the protections and benefits of marriage bestowed upon them, by default, in every state of the union, yes? You're only taking issue with which states choose to provide marriage licenses?

If that's true, then I really only have to argue with one sentiment you expressed, given that it seems to contradict that:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 147): Yes it may require some tough choices for some, such as your job. Life is full of tough choices, for gays and straights both. As you mention, it does come down to priorities. I too, have had to turn down jobs I really wanted because my wife was not willing to put up with some of the things that went with them. Welcome to marriage. If you thought you would never have to comprise for the sake of a marriage, you were misinformed.

It is one thing if I have to compromise with my spouse for the sake of our marriage, it's another thing entirely if I have to compromise with the government of the State of *whichever* or, even worse, the US Federal government. Y'see... you, as a straight man, would never be forced not to take a job because your marriage might dissolve due to the state you're living in. If I'm getting married, I don't care what part of the country I'm in... the local authorities had better recognize that legal contract. Regardless of if their morals tell them it's null and void or not.

Take another situation as an example:
I live in a state that issues marriage liscenses to gay couples. My partner and I go to a state that does not for a vacation. I'm toolin' around in my rental car when some kid comes along in his parent's Beemer and t-bones my drivers door at 50 miles an hour. *flash forward a few hours* Now I'm in the hospital... my spouse is worried sick. Oops, too bad... we're legal strangers.

He's not allowed to make decisions about my heatlh care, he's not even allowed to come back to see me. This man that I've developed a life with? He's not allowed to participate at all. Why? Simply because we wanted to go on a little vacation, and we made the error of going to a state where the residents can't see past the bindings of their Bibles.

That, sir, is neither right nor fair.

I'm all for people having strong faith. I vehemently support your right to practice your religion, and to believe in God, and to find comfort in Scripture. I will even go so far as to encourage you to do so, if you find it helps you. I, however, find that it helps me to be with the person I want to be with. I find strength in my romantic relationships, and I'm hoping to find more strength when the "one" comes along some day.

I find it difficult to believe that you lose much by having your kids taught by gay teachers. I'd even venture to say that they probably already have been, or if they havn't, they will. I'd be willing to bet that at some point you've had a coworker who, amazingly enough, did their job, chitchatted with you at the water cooler, and then *gasp* went home to their same-sex partner after work. I have a very hard time understanding how that has detrimented you, your faith, your marriage, or your children. Do you know why I can't understand it? Because I live my life every day. I work with people who share your opinions, I go to school with people who share your opinions, I even have good friends who share your opinions. I have yet to see a good example of my presense destroying some portion of thier life.

I have given some thought to the healthcare issue, and there are a few easily implimentable solutions I can think of. Require health insurance providers to allow people to stipulate as a part of thier policy who has access to them in the hospital and who does not. This way the wishes of the individual are respected and it kills several birds with one stone. 2. When a person is admitted to a hospital, they are allowed to stipulate who they want to have access, without regard to reason or family relation. 3. In the absence of a health insurance plan and if the person is unable to make thier wishes known and no living will exists, allow visitation, but withhold personal information until a compeling relationship between the visitor and patient can be established.

As for the teacher issue, I worry about any person who is in a position to have a significant influence upon my children. When it comes to some subjects in school, things are pretty black and white. Algebra is Algebra for example. When it comes to social issues though, I worry not only about the content of the course, but the biases of the person teaching them. As for my co-workers, many of them are openly gay. but it has rarely been an issue. They don't tell me what to think, and I do not preach at them. I will always answer honesty when asked, but I don't push my viewpoint.

You are partially correct in you sumation of my position. I do not want my state to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I do not want them to compell any company or organization to have to recognize them. They are, of course, free to do so on thier own, but without a state mandate. I do not want the state to give tacit approval to something I think is wrong. Now if another state choses to do so, it should be left up to that states lawmakers and voters. I don't live there, I don't have any standing there, so I could not influence it if I wanted to. Gay marriage is an issue which is probably here to stay. If states choose to allow it, then it is the federal governments job to make sure that all citizens can move about the country without fear and without legal prejudice, but also stand in the gap between states and prevent one state legislature from imposing its concept of right and wrong on another state. A tough balancing act to be sure, but most folks in DC are well compensated for thier troubles.

It is not a matter of this causing harm to me personally, it is a matter of right, wrong, and, since we will never agree, finding a realistic way to be able to civilly disagree. I have my concerns about what this will mean for our society, but only time will tell if they are well founded or not.

I'm just curious if you are *as* concerned with the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals, or do you see gay marriage as the biggest "threat" to the institution of marriage? Do the divorce laws in your state play any factor in where you choose to live? I ask this, because it seems to me that the advent of the "quickie" divorce would seem a much more serious threat to marriage than a few gays getting married could ever be.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 160): I ask this, because it seems to me that the advent of the "quickie" divorce would seem a much more serious threat to marriage than a few gays getting married could ever be.

Logically, yes that would make sense. However you can forego logic dealing with someone stubborn like this on a quest to make a stand for their 'principles'. And in my previous question, I was not looking for cost/quality of living economics 101, Lowrider- i was talking about a similar political issue that would cause you not to live someplace. Lets see..a good example would be someone refusing to live somewhere with the death penalty. Just an example.

You raise a good point with divorce laws, however I see little correlation between divorce laws and divorce rates. It is also difficult to track divorce rates on a state by state basis because people do not always divorce in the same state they marry. Therefore I do not consider divorce rates a useful metric when looking at the character of an city or state.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 161): Lets see..a good example would be someone refusing to live somewhere with the death penalty. Just an example.

Truthfully, I would prefer states with the death penalty. I was trying to cite factors which would make me want to move to a state. I misunderstood that you were only interesting in the opposite. As for laws that would keep me out of a state, Texas's open container policy will keep me out of there. I have a very personal gudge with drunk driving. If Arizona's Motorcycle Organ Donar law had passed, that probably would have kept me from moving there. I consider that an unreasonable invasion of a person's private life. I really like New Hampshire, but if the recently passed bill regarding termination of life support does in fact become law, it would remove that state from any future consideration. Hopefully this is a better answer to your question.

As for me foregoing logic, again I will try and avoid personal mudslinging. These snide, condescending remarks add nothing to an intelligent discussion. Your obvious contempt for my principles is enlightening though.

Sorry for thinking that a single law or policy in a state would stop you from living there is logical. If everyone shared your point of view, the country would become segregated and fall apart.

When Bush run and all the liberals were bitching, they were told to deal with it.

I did not agree with people saying 'oh, im going to go to canada now!', what kind of crap is that? Try to make a difference here before you jump ship.

And your viewpoints go right along those same lines. But if you want to run away from everything you dont agree with, fine.

[Edited 2005-03-23 05:17:35]

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 162): These snide, condescending remarks add nothing to an intelligent discussion.

You can't have intelligent discussion about prejudice.

I actually thought twice about my previous post, because I was wading through the pages of what seemed like rational thought above, but then I realized it was pointless.

No matter how nicely its reasoned out and summed up, its still reasoning out and summing up of hate. Its unAmerican, and shameful.

N

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 159): t is not a matter of this causing harm to me personally, it is a matter of right, wrong, and, since we will never agree, finding a realistic way to be able to civilly disagree. I have my concerns about what this will mean for our society, but only time will tell if they are well founded or not.

I wish people would study history.... Abraham Lincoln had a boyfriend and it is well documented, yet he was considered a great man.

This won't mena anything for society except more stability for 5% of the population.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 164): No matter how nicely its reasoned out and summed up, its still reasoning out and summing up of hate. Its unAmerican, and shameful

Yes, because I have displayed so much hate and disrespect. Just goes to show that people see what they want to. I would say you probably hate my beliefs with an intensity that defies any rational discussion. As for being unAmerican, I was not aware that my citizenship was conditional upon accepting a certain line of thought.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 165): I wish people would study history.... Abraham Lincoln had a boyfriend and it is well documented, yet he was considered a great man.

I have studied history, and have never disputed the existance of homosexuality throughout history. Great historical figures are not in dispute here. What Lincoln did on his own time in private is not in dispute here. If I recall, he also had a wife and a few children too. What about him would you like to discuss?

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 163): Sorry for thinking that a single law or policy in a state would stop you from living there is logical. If everyone shared your point of view, the country would become segregated and fall apart.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 163): I did not agree with people saying 'oh, im going to go to canada now!', what kind of crap is that? Try to make a difference here before you jump ship. And your viewpoints go right along those same lines. But if you want to run away from everything you dont agree with, fine.

I could find fault with almost every state if I took the time, my point is that in some cases, there are deal breakers. You asked for examples of these and I gave them to you. For me, there are a few things I cannot overlook. Occasionally you find something that is intolerable. I am not jumping ship to another country, nor am I running from anything. Were this issue to come up in my state, I would certainly stand my ground for my side, and if I lose, I lose. If I then seek a location where my opinion is in the majority, what, exactly have I fled from. I made my case, fought my fight, and lost. Were things to go the other way, what would you do?

What I find amazing is that someone proposes a comprise. It is not everything I want, but it is not everything you want either. A suggestion to accomadate both sides is seen as intolerable. It has to be 100% one way. I would offer some accomadation, not out of agreement, but out respect for individual choice, and you would spit it back at me. Yet you would then demand universal acceptance and tolerance for your views. And some would accuse me of being illogical and irrational.

I accept and tolerate everything about you.

I want you to be able to live your life in any way you see fit. Marry whom you wish, entertain as you wish, work where you want, retire when you want. Hell, I'd even celebrate each and every one of those things with you. I'd go so far as to say I would die defending your rights to do any one of those things.

Why is it so hard to return the sentiment?

As a Christian, your judgements of right and wrong ends with you. Only God can say that what I'm doing is right or wrong.

N

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 167): accept and tolerate everything about you. I want you to be able to live your life in any way you see fit. Marry whom you wish, entertain as you wish, work where you want, retire when you want. Hell, I'd even celebrate each and every one of those things with you. I'd go so far as to say I would die defending your rights to do any one of those things. Why is it so hard to return the sentiment? As a Christian, your judgements of right and wrong ends with you. Only God can say that what I'm doing is right or wrong. N

Those are about the wisest words I have seen written in Non-Av in months. Nice thoughts Neil.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 167): Why is it so hard to return the sentiment

I think I have made a pretty clear case for returning the sentiment. I disagree with what some people would choose to do, but will not stop them from doing so. As I have stated earlier, its a big country with lots of regional variation. I am quite willing to let folks go and live as they see fit, pass what laws they see fit and do what seems right in thier eyes. All I am asking is that I be allowed to do the same. If enought of us think alike to vote a certain way in a state, fine. If it is different in a neigboring state fine. I fail to see how that is not returning the sentiment. This is the case I have made from the beginning. Its not unAmerican, its not hateful, and it is not imposing my morals upon others.

Gosh I hope gay marriage becomes a national right someday.

Then you'll have to shut up or leave!  

I do accuse you of being illogical and irrational, Lowrider. Because your views have no basis in fact. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the notion that sexual/romantic attraction between members of the same sex is a normal and even "intended" aspect of human sexuality. Throughout history it has been shown time and time again that homosexuals are fully capable of being intelligent, honest, hard-working, and beneficial members of society (the Lincoln example is just one of a vast array). There is no evidence that children taught by gay teachers are any more or less susceptible to "becoming" gay themselves... although they may learn more about diversity than you ever did... and *gasp* they may open their minds beyond the pages of their Bible and learn to make friends with and try to understand people regardless of petty differences (but... of course... we wouldn't want our children to become better people than we are. No, that'd be waaay too much forward progress). Your unwillingness to open your mind to the possibilities here is maddening, and the fact that you're not the only one who has declared the case on this matter closed without even considering all of the evidence is a key reason that acceptance of your proposed "compromises" is not forthcoming.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 169): As I have stated earlier, its a big country with lots of regional variation. I am quite willing to let folks go and live as they see fit, pass what laws they see fit and do what seems right in thier eyes.

That's easy for you to say, because all of your rights are already guaranteed.

Its "not returning the sentiment" because you don't acknowledge that every single American deserves the same rights regardless of majority opinion.

N

If gay marriage was legalized here tomorrow would I move immediately? Probably not. I would want to wait at least 6 months to make sure it would stick and intelligently consider my options for residence and employment. It would spur me to start my research again, however.

I'm curious as to how you think that approval of gay marriage would affect you? Is it because you don't wish to live near gay married people? There's a good chance that your neighbors may be gay unmarried people or gay couples with civil unions? In any case, irrespective of where you live, you may come across gay couples or individuals. Texas appears to have more than its share. If you prefer that your children be shielded from gay couples or the issue, remember that states are not separated from each other by walls impenetrable by the media, so wherever you go, the issue of gay marriage as a national issue will remain.

So, what exactly would you be running away from? And how does this affect you personally? Its not like any of your own rights and sense of morality are being taken away from you.

I will say it again, it comes down to the fact that I think gay marriage is wrong. Is it such a stretch to understand why I would not want something I think is wrong to become the norm in the community where I live? What you do on your own, you are accountable for. Public policy, on the other hand, is something which we all are accountable for. I have always viewed leaving a state as a potential form of protest. To the state, I am little more than a tax dollar generating unit. When I leave, I take my tax dollars with me. If enough tax dollars leave, the state will start to pay attention. Given a choice, why should I not choose a state which is more in line with my values?

I think this is an important issue, one that will shape the nation for decades to come. I think it is on the par with the Monroe Doctrine, the abandonment of the gold standard, the decision to for the league of nations (and later the UN), the decision to prevent southern succession, Roe v Wade, the decision to impliment the income tax, and many others which may have altered the trajectory of the country only a small amount at the time, but had effects which have propagated for generations. Some decisions have that effect and some don't. Sometimes we recognize it, sometimes we don't.

Lekohawk, you are better than your last post. You fall back on all sorts of stereotypes and make inferences which are not supported by any thing I have said. I have never made any remark to say that homosexuals were anything other than fine, upstanding, hardworking people. I just happen to disagree with them on a few things. If disagreement makes me close minded, so be it. As for my desires for my children, I will give them everything I can to help them to become the best people they can. If they also do not agree with you, have I failed? What makes you think I cannot befriend a homosexual or teach my children not to? Must all your friends agree with you on every point right down the line? What you view as progress, I view as a regression. What other possibilities should I open my mind to? I think I am fairly aware of all the possibilities, I have just chosen a particular one you don't like. On what do you base your assertion that I am ignorant of diversity? Do you know my background or education? How diverse is it to disregard everyone who does not agree with you? Is it easier to regard me as a close minded bigot then to try and see things from my point of view. I have tried to see yours, which is how I came to the conclusion that a national ban on gay marriage was an unworkable solution. I have tried to acknowledge the good and valid points you have made, but that seems to matter little.

If nothing else, consider my solution a competition of ideas. Time will tell which decision was the right one. The country was founded as an experiment in govenment. Have we become too scared to experiment further. Remember, and good experiment needs a control and a test. We already have both available, but do we have the will to use them?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 174): I have never made any remark to say that homosexuals were anything other than fine, upstanding, hardworking people. I just happen to disagree with them on a few things.

Oh, and threaten to leave the state where they attain equal rights in!!

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 174): Given a choice, why should I not choose a state which is more in line with my values?

Values are a pretty personal thing, which really should not be imposed on others. Gay marriage doesn't assault your values, it has nothing to do with them. Maybe you are so insecure with your values that you need to be somewhere that the most people agree with you?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 174): I think this is an important issue, one that will shape the nation for decades to come. I think it is on the par with the Monroe Doctrine, the abandonment of the gold standard, the decision to for the league of nations (and later the UN), the decision to prevent southern succession, Roe v Wade, the decision to impliment the income tax, and many others

No way. This affects a much smaller portion of society than any of those other issues!! Propogated for generations? Seems like to you, a better solutino to this propogation would be to get rid of all the gays instead of just not giving them benefits they deserve.

You think that because you write your threads in an organized, concise, and quasi-respectful manner it makes your views any less radical and rational. Guess what: we see right through you.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 174): As for my desires for my children, I will give them everything I can to help them to become the best people they can.

And what happens if any of your children turn out to be gay? Shall I say "Lord help them"? Although, I doubt it would have the same intent as if you were to say it.

Spare us the oft recited "my kids would never be gay". If you did end up with a homosexual son or daughter, would that mean that they had not "become the best people they can"?

Tell us Lowrider, would you or could you love your child any less if he or she turned out to be gay? People are born gay or straight. It is not conditioning and it is not a choice. Would you be willing to stand by your child to be the best person they could be...the best person they could be who just happened to be gay?

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 175): Values are a pretty personal thing, which really should not be imposed on others

Agreed

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 175): Gay marriage doesn't assault your values, it has nothing to do with them.

Disagreed

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 175): Seems like to you, a better solutino to this propogation would be to get rid of all the gays instead of just not giving them benefits they deserve.

Disagreed, I never proposed this and will never. As a matter of fact I think I made reference to the fact that gays have intrinsic value by simple fact of being people. See #147

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 175): You think that because you write your threads in an organized, concise, and quasi-respectful manner it makes your views any less radical and rational. Guess what: we see right through you.

I doubt it, my respect is as genuine as my concern. My views may be radical to some. Does that make them wrong? See through me? Hardly. If you did you would come to much different conclusions.

Quoting PacificWestern (Reply 176): And what happens if any of your children turn out to be gay?

Excellent question. I have wondered this myself over the course of the thread. I would hope that my children would trust me enough to come to me and tell me. I suppose my first question would be, "how did you come to this conclusion?" How I handled things from there on out would depend on a lot of things. There is a big difference between a 13 year old telling you this and a 32 year old. My kids are my kids. I could never not love them. I may be upset, disappointed, or hurt, but I how could I not love them? Do you have kids? Do you agree with everything they do? It would be tough, but I would not isolate or disown them, as some have done. Beyond that, I have no clear answer at this point.

I have proposed what I thought was a comprimise that seems to be unacceptable to most. So tell me, what is you suggestion. What would you come up with that both you and I would agree with. Assume for the moment that we actually have the authority to decide this. I have made it clear what I will not agree with. Make a counter-offer. I am genuinely curious to see what you would say.

My view from Reply 23:

I agree that the civil partnership is the best way to initially go, as a sort of middle road. At the end of the day Marriage is still just an 8 letter word, but one these conservatives will fight to the bitter end for ( to protect the sanctity of marriage in a country where half end in divorce and "who wants to marry a multi-millionaire, but thats a whole nother story) It's really interesting to think about W's debate comments on this issue, and his election time support of benefits of civil partnerships. Now its just the occasional contitutional ban talk. Where's a push for some equal rights/civil union legislation, Mr. President?

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 51): A potential solution to all of this is to do away with “marriage” as a legally recognized status for everyone and replace it with civil unions that can be entered into by any two adults including gays. Then leave it up to churches as to whether or not they want to sanction a particular civil union as a “marriage”.

Lowrider, perhaps this is the solution you have been searching for. Why is the State involved in the endorsement of a supposedly-religious institution in the first place? Is not the State solely involved in legislating, interpreting and enforcing civil public policy rather than endorsing religious institutions and their theology?

In fact, this is exactly what Canada's proposed national legislation does; NO religious institutions are required to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 22): Compare that "oppression" to what African Americans and Hispanics, among other minorities, had to endure before the Civil Rights movement

the only difference being that many/most gays can hide what they are when necessary.... the overwhelming majority of non-whites could not.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 42): They will certainly not be able to stop a couple that gets married in MA

...not for long.

Quoting Daedaeg (Reply 39): This will definitely lead to a constitutional referendum for the California voters come 2006. Now California along with 13 other states will make gay marriage unconstitutional.

Bingo

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 50): What an awful idea. Having different standards all over the country. People being forced to move from their home to attain equal rights? Would the home states rights take precedent over the rights of another state if they are there?

Happens all the time actually

Quoting Superfly (Reply 54): Very true but I think a lot of people voted this way hoping they would never have a gay son or daughter. I know it sounds stupid but people can be moved to make stupid decisions like this.

You have no idea... hell, I witnessed 1stHand people voting this way who ALREADY HAVE gay children. Care to guess how?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 57): The left have NEVER proposed propisitions limiting the freedoms of others.

...might wanna read up on "gun control" dearest  

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 174): There is a big difference between a 13 year old telling you this and a 32 year old.

You'd be surpised how little (if existent) said "difference" really is... particularly concerning males.

Hey Fred,

I'd be interested in hearing some of your feelings about issues brought up in this thread, rather than just picking through peoples posts.

...wasnt about to read through 170+ posts detail for detail, but if you have a specific issue you want to talk to me about, feel free to bring it up.

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 176): Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 51): A potential solution to all of this is to do away with “marriage” as a legally recognized status for everyone and replace it with civil unions that can be entered into by any two adults including gays. Then leave it up to churches as to whether or not they want to sanction a particular civil union as a “marriage”. Lowrider, perhaps this is the solution you have been searching for. Why is the State involved in the endorsement of a supposedly-religious institution in the first place? Is not the State solely involved in legislating, interpreting and enforcing civil public policy rather than endorsing religious institutions and their theology?

You might be on to something there. Especially if you mean for the government to remove all language and recognition regarding marriage from all statutes. In other words, get the government out of the marriage business entirely? Meaning marriage would no longer exist as a legal status for anyone? Might make things a little sticky when it comes to property, custody. and medical issues, but I am sure that can be worked out. Especially if starting from a clean sheet of paper. Either I missed that the first time around or it slipped my mind. It does not have the states rights' bent that I am usually on, and it certainly does not offer the veto by exodus option, but if it is no longer a legal status, then nothing is being endorsed either. It bears a little mulling over...

Considering marriage was not an institution in the church until the 1200's this whole thread regarding lowrider is kind of pointless.

He is entitled to his opinion as much as I am entitled to mine. it just cracks me up someone would spend time debating this topic.

It is never easy being the minority.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 181): You might be on to something there. Especially if you mean for the government to remove all language and recognition regarding marriage from all statutes. In other words, get the government out of the marriage business entirely?

Well, yes, this is what I mean. If "marriage" is a religious institution, then it should be endorsed and supported by religious organizations, not the State. The State [and I am referring to both national/Federal and provincial/State governments] is concerned with public policy and civil law. After all, the only recognition the gay and lesbian community wish afforded is civil marriage, not religious endorsement.

Leave the religious endorsement of "marriage" to religious organizations, not the State.

However, civil marriage and the host of legal protections afforded by it should not be limited to heterosexual relationships. Also, the introduction of "civil unions" or "marriage light" will not strengthen marriage, but only create a "separate but equal" [remember that?] class of couples.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 180): ...wasnt about to read through 170+ posts detail for detail, but if you have a specific issue you want to talk to me about, feel free to bring it up.

How do you think this gay marriage/rights fight will play out? How do you think it should be handled? Oh, and what do you think about lowrider's run'n'pout concept if he doesn't like something that is passed in his state?

Justin

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 171): I will say it again, it comes down to the fact that I think gay marriage is wrong.

I think Christianity is an abhorrent cult that raises people in a culture of fear. I think it's wrong, as well.

But if it were outlawed, I'd be one of the first people there with you to protest it.

N

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 185): But if it were outlawed, I'd be one of the first people there with you to protest it.

Thank you!! These people simply do not understand civil liberties and rights of others do not interfere with their own beliefs! Why they choose to try to enforce their beliefs on everyone else, I will never know.

Lowrider...

You're missing the entire point of my post. Which is to say that your beliefs have very little to do with my equal protection/privilege under the law. Your beliefs are just that, beliefs. No one's telling you you can't have them as beliefs... we're just suggesting that you should not be able to enforce those standards on anyone else. I'm not asking to enforce my standards on you, I'm demanding to be allowed to enforce my standards on me. The way you make it sound, it's as if the legalization of gay marriage would force you to divorce your wife and go out and marry a man. Certainly, that's the furthest thing from the truth.

Christians often go off about the difference between simply calling yourself a Christian versus actually living the life of a Christian. I, am asking for... scratch that, I'm demanding... the right to live my life as a gay man, instead of just calling myself that, and going through the motions. I want official recognition for my relationships... just as you want official recognition for yours.

Simply because you do not directly stand something to gain does not mean there is detriment to you. With my proposal you're allowed to get married, you're allowed to have your marriage recognized by the various governments and jurisdictions associated with your locale, and you're allowed to believe in whatever you want, independent of what I do with my life. I am granted all three of those rights as well. You get everything you want, I get everything I want. You lose nothing, I gain something you have without taking it away from you. Now we're both equal. Unless you get your jollies thinking you're somehow better than me (I would certainly hope you have more class than that)... the fact is that nothing about gay marriage causes you any harm at all.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 184): How do you think this gay marriage/rights fight will play out?

Not gonna happen any time soon here (as a nation), nor for any length of time in regional areas (i.e., MA, CA, etc) where a vote will eventually take place.

One day maybe, but not soon.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 184): How do you think it should be handled?

I think the government should disassociate itself with ALL marriages... and let everyone have the Civil Union of their choice, with the optional religious blessings that follow being called marriage.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 184): Oh, and what do you think about lowrider's run'n'pout concept if he doesn't like something that is passed in his state?

It's probably bullsh!t. History has repeatedly shown that the overwhelming majority of the it better happen my way or I'm outta this country spouters are still here after the fact