The Black Vault

Personally, I don't care for marriage at all. I don't see the need for it. Cavemen didn't need marriage ceremonies to maintain their families. Similarly, the ancient Greeks had no formal, state sanctioned marriage rite. Instead, people just considered themselves bonded and stayed together. This battle is a waste of time.

You are the one who expressed an opinion about it and mental illness!

I know. But I'm saying I'm not a proponent of any sort of marriage. The fight over recognition is useless. Gay may be genetic abberation or mental condition , this is true, but either way, state recognition of a union is irrelevant and just a tradition engaged in because I guess for some, it gives them some sense of assurance that it means more than it really does. It's just a rite. Our society made it legally binding. In reality love isn't affected one way or another by some words spoken over an expensive ring.

It's a battle of semantics at this stage.

Evidently wedding vows mean something to many people, and the santity of marriage between a man and woman. Several states have voted same sex marriage down. They are not just meaningless words said over an expensive ring, to those who believe their wedding vows were a sacrate vow to each other, in the eyes of God. For Catholics Marriage is a Holy Sacrament, not to be desecrated by what is was not intended for.

I could care less what 2 people do behind closed doors, or if city hall wants to allow civil unions. They have all the legal rights of marriage, taxes, and benifits which is a subject in itself. I know of no opposite sex partners who are in civil unions, that seems to be reserved only for same-sex partners, what more do they want, nobody treads into their unique classification. If anything, legal issues like debts of a partner are not legally defined like those of marriage. They get away with many obligations married people, are liable for as a couple.

When Ted and Fred, or Jean and Jane are allowed to get married, they may find things they qualified for as single people will instantly disappear, as "Married" changes all filing status and has a new set of criteria, like State aid of medical, etc.

If they take that to the supreme court a good look will be taken at the constitution in regards to gay marriage.

They have all the legal rights of marriage, taxes, and benifits which is a subject in itself.

Again, why not allow gays to be married?

Supreme court of a California ruled the vote was unconstitutional, and overturned it. It is being appealed, but it will probably still be allowable, as other states are also allowing it. The US Supreme Court is allowing it to be a individual State matter of law, at least for now. It may be allowed in some states, but I do not think the IRS recognizes the married status, on your income tax yet, for same sex marriage. Anyone know that for sure?

Just go ahead and allow it, might as well abolish it completly for evryone, and we all can just be civil unions, no matter what you are.

Bottom line is a dog pedigree is a tighter requirment prooving who a Mother and Father are for a certificate.

at1with0 wrote:Again, why not allow gays to be married?

hmm... Not seeing a reason there...

If you want a society where there are no standards or requirements, be my guest, thats the liberal way of doing things. Anything goes, nothing is wrong, everyone does it anyway, so why even have rules for anything. California passed a voting issue by over 50%, and our Constitution struck it down. It was previously supported becasue gays were not discriminated against in any way shape or form, having attained the rights to civil unions, declare one another dependants for insurance reasons, etc. At that time the State courts ruled, becasue of the limited numbers affected and becasue they had these other options, same sex marriage was not allowed. Nothing has changed that in my mind, and in fact certain other obligtions are not required with civil unions. The medical debts of a domestic partner are not the responsibility of the other partner in case of a death. Married couples are obligated to these debts, right into the poor house, and loosing there homes. I get a little pissed off when Ted and Fred can declare each other partners, and Ted can get Fred heart surgury off his group medical. But 2 devoted parents lose that medical benifit of a depentant child, who may forever be dependant, and after a certain age loose all medical coverage.

Again, no real legal reason to prohibit it. With murder and theft, for example, you can cite reasons.

To say that someone who believes gay marriage should be legal implies they think everything should be legal is classic slippery slope fallacy. Same fallacious thinking if you say that supporting gay marriage implies desire for no standards in society.

Your words are exactly the same flavor as someone who wanted to keep Jim Crow laws. Like when a black man and white woman wanted to get married they couldn't because of the exact same discrimination that you are exhibiting.

Saying that over 50% of this state voted to define marriage as a man and woman, and equate that to Jim Crow laws is a crock of sh*t. The flavor of over 50% of the state voting was certainly not racism, so don;t go playing the race card, or homophobia crap. California voters said they felt marriage should be for a man and a woman only. So What! California law recognized civil unions and Domestic partners, and the court upheld they were not discriminated against becasue of that, prior to this new situation.