Ouch

[Artha]

California gay marriages annulled (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/nm/20040812/ts_nm/rights_gays_marriage_dc).

[Ravenstorm]

Yes. It's pretty tragic for the families involved though not terribly surprising. There's little question that Newsom did exceed his authority. The best case scenario would have been that the licenses were just considered held in limbo until the state Supreme Court rules on the issue as a whole.

Raven

[DeV]

My girlfriend and I were just talking about this yesterday. He didn't have the authority to grant the marriages in the first place.

Edited for grammar.

[Edited on 8-12-2004 by DarkelfVold]

[Czeska]

Yeah well, some people have too much free time to worry about who's marrying who, apparently. Not like there is other shit going on in the world, like.. oh I dunno, our guys dying overseas.

/end bitchwitch

[Chyrain]

Originally posted by Czeska
Yeah well, some people have too much free time to worry about who's marrying who, apparently. Not like there is other shit going on in the world, like.. oh I dunno, our guys dying overseas.

/end bitchwitch

except that the biggest issue for opponents of gay marriage isn't really about whether or not they get life insurance benefits, but if it's going to break down and be destructive the family unit.

I think it's completely valid to be making sure that if gay marriage is allowed constitutionally, that it's not going to be harmful to our society as whole. It's the gay marriage advocate's job to prove that it wont be in order to change what's already standard law.

It should be a state mandated thing anyway. And the Supreme Court, I believe, will probably keep it that way. I don't think that the gay marriage advocates are making it any easier by taking it to the Supreme Court for a federal mandate. I think the Supreme Court is less likely to vote in their favor, but they could probably get more states to change their constitutions.

[fallenSaint]

Yay?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Chyrain

I think it's completely valid to be making sure that if gay marriage is allowed constitutionally, that it's not going to be harmful to our society as whole.

:lol:

How will it do that?
All of a sudden, heterosexual couples will say "Hey! I dont wanna be in a straight marriage, I prefer a gay one!"?

Or do gay marriages cause toxic fumes which contribute to global warming or something?

How can two people getting married, be harmful to society?

Unless of course it's George Bush and Tony Blair

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Chyrain
I think it's completely valid to be making sure that if gay marriage is allowed constitutionally, that it's not going to be harmful to our society as whole. It's the gay marriage advocate's job to prove that it wont be in order to change what's already standard law.

What a completely bogus, illogical excuse that is. There is not only NOT one shred of any evidence showing that it would 'be harmful to society' but they can't even come up with anything beyond vague threats and biblical justifications.


Court’s decision today, depriving these families of equal dignity as well as of the many legal protections granted to married couples under California law. Among the families are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, (pictured) the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on February 12, 2004.

" Del is eighty-three years old and I am seventy-nine," said Lyon, . "After being together for more than fifty years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time." One very real consequence of the Court's action is that if one of the women were to die before the other, the surviving partner would have no right to social security or pension benefits and no protection against losing their family home.

51 years these women have been together. How are they not, in all respects other than legally, married? How is their relationship harming society if they had the same legal protections that every other couple had? 51 years. Most straight marriages don't last that long. Or even half that long. And yet the only reason they aren't married is they're both women.

Discrimination, pure and simple. And the opponents of it want it mandated into law. Let them show how it will be harmful to society and then just maybe they'll have a point. But of course, they can't.

Raven

[HarmNone]

I, too, am most interested in how gay marriage, as opposed to straight marriage, can be harmful to society. Please enlighten me.:whistle:

HarmNone, waiting with bated breath

[Souzy]

I'm going to my friends wedding in November!

The marriages were not legal. I'm glad to hear this verdict.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
The marriages were not legal. I'm glad to hear this verdict.

- Arkans Im sure in the minds of those who married their union still stands, morally if not legally.
It's only a matter of time before people relinquish the hate.

No hate here. It's a known fact that the marriages were done illegally.

HEY I HATE THE MURDER LAWS. IM GONNA GO PWN THE DOGSHIT OUT OF MY NEIGHBOR, STEAL HIS MONEY AND RAPE HIS DAUGHTER MAYBE PEEPLE WILL RELINQUISHS HATE!!111

We got laws in this country and I think it's best that we follow them.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
No hate here. It's a known fact that the marriages were done illegally.

HEY I HATE THE MURDER LAWS. IM GONNA GO PWN THE DOGSHIT OUT OF MY NEIGHBOR, STEAL HIS MONEY AND RAPE HIS DAUGHTER MAYBE PEEPLE WILL RELINQUISHS HATE!!111

We got laws in this country and I think it's best that we follow them.

- Arkans I agree. The caps aren't necessary in proving your point though. Practically eveyone knew the marriages would not uphold since the Mayor acted on his own accord.

Laws were made to be changed.

[DeV]

Oh and please try and refrain from comparing a murder law to a marriage law. That is simply ridiculous.

I know they wern't. I try to put caps and horrible spelling errors in most of my posts when I am showing a ridiculous point.

If the people voted to change the laws? By all means, get married. I just think when elected officials bypass laws it sets a dangerous precident.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
I know they wern't. I try to put caps and horrible spelling errors in most of my posts when I am showing a ridiculous point.



OMG, I GET IT NOW!!!!1111 :rolleyes:

[Artha]

I'm guilty of using caps/bad spelling/excessive punctuation to express sarcasm too. It's hard to get out over the interweb.

[HarmNone]

It's sad that things like all caps, poor spelling and excessive punctuation have taken the place of creative use of language. It is especially sad when seen in those who could do so much better.

I know. :offtopic:

HarmNone knows, already

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by HarmNone]

But caps and l33t are KEWLZ. C'mon now, HN!

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Hee! Perhaps they are kewlz, Arkans. I, however, am much more enticed by inventive use of the language. It makes me think. Thinking makes me happy. When I'm happy, I'm malleable. Considering I'm rarely malleable unless I'm happy, I'd think people would make more of an effort, wouldn't you? :lol:

HarmNone, thinking.......

[Ravenstorm]

In other words, she's saying they make her bitchy. Excuse me... even more bitchy.

Raven

Originally posted by HarmNone
Hee! Perhaps they are kewlz, Arkans. I, however, am much more enticed by inventive use of the language. It makes me think. Thinking makes me happy. When I'm happy, I'm malleable. Considering I'm rarely malleable unless I'm happy, I'd think people would make more of an effort, wouldn't you? :lol:

HarmNone, thinking.......

OMG UR MALEEBLEZ ROFL LOL!!!11111

- Arkans

Wrap your brain around that one!

[Betheny]

I think intraspecies marriage should be allowed.

Far less destructive than gay marriage, you know.

/END SARCASM.

Maimara didn't use all caps and bad spelling. She was obviously serious. I don't care about the /END SARCASM.

- Arkans

[Souzy]

OK wow...this much commotion over marriage? Get the fuck out of here. There's more serious shit to worry about. Since when is loving someone effecting/hurting anyone else? People need to leave their house more often. Good fuckin' lawddddddddd child!

[DeV]

Sarcasm is good, when utilized properly. If there is such a thing. Maimara does it very well.

[HarmNone]

Whaddaya mean, MORE bitchy, Bird? You ain't seen BITCHY yet! :soapbox:

HarmNone has perfected the science of bitchery over the years

Originally posted by Lalana
OK wow...this much commotion over marriage? Get the fuck out of here. There's more serious shit to worry about. Since when is loving someone effecting/hurting anyone else? People need to leave their house more often. Good fuckin' lawddddddddd child!

Marriage isn't the problem. Breaking the law is.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

No one's said what he did was legal. And bitchery is an art, not a science.

Raven

[Souzy]

We break the law almost everyday. Unless someone is murdering someone, injuring someone, or anything harmful that effects one others life, then it's no big deal.

Originally posted by Lalana
We break the law almost everyday. Unless someone is murdering someone, injuring someone, or anything harmful that effects one others life, then it's no big deal.

Doesn't make it any more right or legal. Not to mention that our buddy Garry is an elected official. He should be held to an even higher standard than us common folk.

- Arkans

[Souzy]

True, so what happened when homegirl gave Clinton head again?

Nothing, unfortunately. The head didn't bother me as much as lying under oath did. If any of us did that, we'd be fucked. (Lie under oath, not give head.)

- Arkans

[Betheny]

I'm certain that when our generation comes to power, (any day now folks), we won't have to worry about retarded issues like this.

...That is, if we don't elect dumb fucks that think writing discrimination into the Constitution is OK.

I'm gonna vote for Bush.

- Arkans

[Chyrain]

Two things really:

1. I wasn't ever talking about my personal beliefs on the matter. And I'm not saying homosexual relationships or marriages are destructive or not. That's for the legislature and courts to decide.

2.To the person who said there are no studies or proof that it harms anyone - There are plenty of studies on gay marriage that say that it is harmful to the children brought into homosexual relationships. There are also studies finding that it's not destructive to the family unit or to children. I guess it depends on which side you want to be on. But there is credible information out there from both sides of the fence. Again, for the sake of this discussion, I'm not stating my personal beliefs to either side of the conflict. I was just stating what legally had to be done in order to change the laws. And in the case of legalizing gay marriage, the burden of proof is on the gay side...for there is already a law and for it to change, it'll have to be an exceptionally good argument to sway the minds of the supreme court.

:moon:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
I'm certain that when our generation comes to power, (any day now folks), we won't have to worry about retarded issues like this.

...That is, if we don't elect dumb fucks that think writing discrimination into the Constitution is OK.

I don't think our generation is anymore liberal than a lot of those people from the 60s flower era were/are now. They're many of the people in power today.

I dunno, we'll see.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Chyrain

2.To the person who said there are no studies or proof that it harms anyone - There are plenty of studies on gay marriage that say that it is harmful to the children brought into homosexual relationships.

Please. Find one for us. This is one of the things that 'everyone knows' I'm guessing. And I'd love to see a credible study that shows it's unhealthy because I've yet to see a single one presented.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association's and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all stated that discriminating against same sex couples harms the children of those parents. And the APA stated outright that it was against the FMA. Granted, the studies are so far limited because it's a recent issue. But that's the only criticism opponents have managed to come up with.

A nice little summary (http://www.psycport.com/stories/comtex_2004_07_13_up_0000-4019-.dstfront_01.ew.xml.html)

Further, I'll point out a brilliant piece of misdirection that opponents of same-sex marriage just love to espouse: the children are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Why? Because homosexuals can legally adopt in 49 out of 50 states and that's not going to change. Gays have children through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy or the 'old fashioned' way. These children are already living with one, or two, homosexual parents.

So just how does keeping their parents from marrying help these children? By keeping them from having two loving, legally recognized parents? By making sure that if the 'real' parent dies, he'll be fostered by some distant relative or stranger instead of the person he lived with and who took care of him when he was sick and maybe even changed his diapers?

So where are these studies that quite clearly show that it is harmful to the children?

And then I'd love an explanation of just how keeping two people from marrying helps the child instead of hurts? This protects the child how? Anyone? Would someone care to try answering this for me? Rick Santorum isn't returning my calls.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Maimara
I'm certain that when our generation comes to power, (any day now folks), we won't have to worry about retarded issues like this.

...That is, if we don't elect dumb fucks that think writing discrimination into the Constitution is OK. Very soon. Similarily, blacks were once denied the right to marry whites and as early as the later 1960's those laws were still in effect.
It might be a couples more hard faught years but sooner or later this type of discrimination will not be acceptable.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Lalana
True, so what happened when homegirl gave Clinton head again?

She parlayed that into probably mega wealth?

Or him? He lied under oath and debated the definition of sex, like a good lawyer. He then parlayed that into a book deal and mega wealth :-D

He was a fair president I thought, though a little on the skeevy side for my tastes.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Chyrain
Two things really:

1. I wasn't ever talking about my personal beliefs on the matter. And I'm not saying homosexual relationships or marriages are destructive or not. That's for the legislature and courts to decide.

2.To the person who said there are no studies or proof that it harms anyone - There are plenty of studies on gay marriage that say that it is harmful to the children brought into homosexual relationships. There are also studies finding that it's not destructive to the family unit or to children. I guess it depends on which side you want to be on. But there is credible information out there from both sides of the fence. Again, for the sake of this discussion, I'm not stating my personal beliefs to either side of the conflict. I was just stating what legally had to be done in order to change the laws. And in the case of legalizing gay marriage, the burden of proof is on the gay side...for there is already a law and for it to change, it'll have to be an exceptionally good argument to sway the minds of the supreme court.

:moon:

You are just way off base here, the burden of proof showing that same sex marriages are in fact harmful must be upon those against it.

If you are wanting to restrict the rights of citizens of this country, you had better give a darned good reason why.