go Cali!

[CJBurgandy]

Got a heads up from our lovable Honor:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.m ... index.html

[Grabmygoblin]

am I the only one who is getting sick of reading these terms in headlines? it starts to get confusing after a while.
*reads headline, first glance* Marriage ban ruled unconsitutional! ...?
*glances second time* Gay marriage ruled unconsitutional!
*glances third time* Gay marriage ban ruled unconsitutional!

*sigh* if they would just start
a) refering to it as "marriage", not "gay marriage"
and
b) ALLOW it
my headaches would decrease so much.

[CJBurgandy]

here here goblin

[MNsane]

am I the only one who is getting sick of reading these terms in headlines? it starts to get confusing after a while.
*reads headline, first glance* Marriage ban ruled unconsitutional! ...?
*glances second time* Gay marriage ruled unconsitutional!
*glances third time* Gay marriage ban ruled unconsitutional!

*sigh* if they would just start
a) refering to it as "marriage", not "gay marriage"
and
b) ALLOW it
my headaches would decrease so much.

ah, but you see, doing it the way you suggested grabmygoblin, would make sense, and when have you EVER seen ANYTHING done by the media or government that makes sense

[Codebear]

thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.

[MNsane]

thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.

my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people

[Sleepsheep]

The scary bit is how many states are trying to ammend their consitutions. It'll likely come to a state wide vote here in hell. I'm afraid that too many people, that would happly spit in W's eye, would either let it go without voting on it, or would vote in favor. Makes me sick. I'll vote but I don't believe the monkeys in charge will let it deter them.

[by the by: Hi folks it's nice to meet you]

[Codebear]

thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.

my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people

sorry I didnt feel like you were attacking me thats just somthing i have a big p[roblem with in the media. tell you the truth i hate the media. i just like my job as a dj and its fun for me so i try not to fit in that whole "media" label. so im sorry for you thinking i was attacking you. sorry bud.

[Irish Witch]

I have always felt it was the job of the media to walk the fine line of not being stepped on by the politicians while not having stones thrown by the public while still trying to state the bleeding obvious to those who aren't smart enough to see it!

[MNsane]

thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.

my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people

sorry I didnt feel like you were attacking me thats just somthing i have a big p[roblem with in the media. tell you the truth i hate the media. i just like my job as a dj and its fun for me so i try not to fit in that whole "media" label. so im sorry for you thinking i was attacking you. sorry bud.

*tosses codebear a cold Leinie's (Leinenkugel's) "BIG BUTT" dopplebock*

[Codebear]

thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.

my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people

sorry I didnt feel like you were attacking me thats just somthing i have a big p[roblem with in the media. tell you the truth i hate the media. i just like my job as a dj and its fun for me so i try not to fit in that whole "media" label. so im sorry for you thinking i was attacking you. sorry bud.

*tosses codebear a cold Leinie's (Leinenkugel's) "BIG BUTT" dopplebock*

woo hoo bigbutt.. nice havent had one in a while.

[Honor]

[by the by: Hi folks it's nice to meet you]

Hi there, SleepSheep... Nice to meet you as well.

[Prettydragoon]

HONOR! WB Honor! I hope this isn't just a drive-by posting from you!

[Tangent]

Personally, I think they should do two things.

First, declare that there is a difference between "Civil Unions" and "Marriages" and allow people of any gender to have Civil Unions. Second, require everyone who wants the tax breaks that were formerly allowed for with Marriage to have a Civil Union.

Or in other words, let the religious fanatics have their cake but not let them eat it legally.

I mean, they talk of the sanctity of marriage and all that bs... that it's religious and all that... but there's this big thing about the seperation of Church and State. So let's do just that. Marriage is no longer a State thing but a Church thing. If you want to be "married" in the eyes of the State, you need a Civil Union (which two guys or two girls or a guy and a girl, whatever floats your boat, can have).

If you think of it, this is already in the works. You need a marriage certificate to be married in the eyes of the State. It doesn't matter if you go to a church and are married in the eyes of God, the government doesn't give a damn until you have that signed piece of paper. So let's go all the way with this.

But I'm awake after 6 hours of sleep having had nightmares of being a cop (I'm not) and being chased by a murderous partner who was armed (and naturally enough I wasn't) so I suppose I'm not exactly coherant.

[SpasticSage]

I think that's an interesting idea....

But you'd have a lot of currently married people who would have the impression that you're taking something away from them (or taking something away from their current union), regardless of how easy it is to get it back. Hence, I think this measure would be quite unpopular, even with non-conservatives.

This leads into the possibility of, for example, doing your plan going forward (civil unions for all after X date; register with churches for marriage), while "grandfathering in" old legal marriages for tax purposes. Hence, new marriages are recognized by church and state, as long as registered in both circles, and old marriages don't have to do anything new for tax purposes (old people don't get as personally offended).

But, as you said, this is very close to what we have now. Essentially, a civil union in the proposed system is the same thing as a legal marriage in the old system, with a different name (A same-sex marriage, by any other name, still offends the conservatives).

It would be easy to implement, sure. Reprint marriage certificates to be Civil union certificates. Conservatives still won't go for it:
(1) Most would rather have their religious marriages legally recognized, and
(2) Most would still be against civil unions being available to same sex partners, because they are so close to marriages. Would the name change really make them stop objecting to it?

[Tangent]

According to the majority of the people with corncobs up their derrieres about this topic, they feel that same-sex unions should be civil unions, and let marriages remain sacrosanct with the Church. Of course, I don't think they quite care about tax or insurance purposes. It's more of a "let's give those poor 'deluded' people what they want under a different name" or somesuch.

Me, I'm all for being old testament up their... derrieres. But I'm that way about such things as abortion (which I feel is completely a woman's choice and I have no right to state women should or should not have one - but if they're going to ban it, ban it all the way, except for health reasons. Because if they are saying it's a sin and all that, I'll quote back "do not visit the sins of the father upon the son" to them. And since that would mean rape or incest births are allowed... they back off more often than not) or several other topics where idiots feel they have a right to dictate how other people live.

BTW, I also would require married couples to have their union re-submitted under the Civil Union laws, just to totally piss off these shmucks who want to ban marriage for people just because they're the same gender. But I suspect the politicians would much rather keep their jobs and grandfather in existing marriages.

The fun thing is, if the Supreme Court tossed down such a Civil Union law as Unconstitutional, that likewise would throw out the very concept of marriage in the eyes of the Constitution. Or at least I don't remember there being anything about people being married existing within the Constitution (well, except the 5th Amendment I think, at least one of those did have something about spouses not being forced to testify against their SO).

Personally, and I'm showing my heathen roots here, I believe Civil Union licenses should be threefold: a 1 year engagement/handfasting license, that if after the year is finished and they still want to be together, would go to a 20-25 year family-contract for raising children or a family. And if after that contract is up and they still want to be together, it extends another 30 or 40 years (or until death even) for Lifetime Partners.

But that would put the divorce lawyers out of business. After all, why pay for a messy divorce if you can just wait out the first year and go your separate ways? Or if after you've raised your kids and want to dump the bum you married, you can without need of legal counsel.

[SpasticSage]

BTW, I also would require married couples to have their union re-submitted under the Civil Union laws, just to totally piss off these shmucks who want to ban marriage for people just because they're the same gender. But I suspect the politicians would much rather keep their jobs and grandfather in existing marriages.

I think we agree as to the results and the feasibility of such a measure, even if we disagree as to whether it's a good idea. I must admit, though, as a single person, it would be interesting to see the shitstorm if this did happen.

The fun thing is, if the Supreme Court tossed down such a Civil Union law as Unconstitutional, that likewise would throw out the very concept of marriage in the eyes of the Constitution. Or at least I don't remember there being anything about people being married existing within the Constitution (well, except the 5th Amendment I think, at least one of those did have something about spouses not being forced to testify against their SO).

I think that's a fair assessment. Then the question is, can states and the federal government make laws about things not mentioned in the constitution?

Personally, and I'm showing my heathen roots here, I believe Civil Union licenses should be threefold: a 1 year engagement/handfasting license, that if after the year is finished and they still want to be together, would go to a 20-25 year family-contract for raising children or a family. And if after that contract is up and they still want to be together, it extends another 30 or 40 years (or until death even) for Lifetime Partners.

While I think that it's a good idea to have at least that long an engagement, you haven't convinced me that it should be legally mandated. We are talking, after all, about what people should and should not be allowed to do with their own persons/relationships.

Me, I'm all for being old testament up their... derrieres. But I'm that way about such things as abortion (which I feel is completely a woman's choice and I have no right to state women should or should not have one - but if they're going to ban it, ban it all the way, except for health reasons. Because if they are saying it's a sin and all that, I'll quote back "do not visit the sins of the father upon the son" to them. And since that would mean rape or incest births are allowed... they back off more often than not) or several other topics where idiots feel they have a right to dictate how other people live.

Kind of off topic, but liberals become pro-lifers when they believe that a fetus "counts" (for lack of a better word) as a human enough that they think it isn't just a decision about the mother's own body. Granted, "countage" would be difficult at best to prove or disprove (and not something I want to go into so much in this thread). I will say it is politically easier for a politician to back down in cases of rape and incest.

[Tangent]

Heh. My handle is Tangent after all! Of course I'm going to go off on one.

As for the whole "handfasting" thing, what I'm talking about would be similar to the Wiccan (among other pagan faiths) concept of a handfasting, in which for a year and a day the couple would be actually married. I would include it for medical insurance and the like (though probably not tax purposes as it's only a year and would probably muck up the IRS something fierce).

Basically it's similar to an engagement except that the couple can act as if they're married (ie, sex, living together, etc.) and if, within the end of that year, they realize they're unsuitable for each other, they can leave without any problems (excepting of course child support if in a man/woman handfasting the man gets the woman pregnant).

(And off on another tangent, I heard of one case where a man was married to a woman, she cheated on him, got pregnant with another man's baby, and he divorced her. She sued successfully for child support from him even though he's not biologically the child's father. Which just leads me to believing quite a few judges out there should be shot out cannon...)

[SpasticSage]

Perhaps it is a good idea to do things this way, but you still haven't convinced me that it should be legally mandated.

Especially so, since it's based on a different religious belief than what the current legal marriage is based on. Isn't this (basing legal commitments on religious beliefs) what's getting us in trouble in the first place?

How is this different from a current day legal marriage, aside from excluding taxes (for bureaucratc trouble), and aside from the set expiration date?

[Sleepsheep]

I like the idea of a "Cinderlla" marrage. You are walking down the street and see a hip young couple walking your way. You turn as they pass and see a big "L" on thier backs. Or they can't have sex after midnight... or maybe it should be only after midnight.... Maybe that part should be left out. Learners permit marrage might not be a good idea.