FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[StevePerryHair]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL
Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.
A few years ago I was all for civil unions or calling it anything as long as all the rights were there that heterosexual marriage afforded. Then one of our friend's partner died and the other was left in the cold because of the "similarity" to heterosexual marriage. I already told that story. I found out that every state that forbids gay marriage doesn't not have to honor civil unions and if marriage comes with federal benefits a civil union could be written so that it didn't come with those same benefits, making gay marriage even more "different".

wow!! You BOTH have chores?? I think you might have it better than me!! seriously though, I want to make sure I'm understanding. Basically, the reason there is a push for a constitutional change in the definition of marriage is because civil union would not be a constitutional change. It would be a law defined and in place. If it's a federal law, states can override it, and it is highly unlikely all states would agree to civil union with all the legal provisions you need equally. so inequalities would still exist. With constitutional change, it can't vary? Another thing that confuses me. We can legally will our things to anyone want as long as we don't have a spouse. So how are families able to go in and just take everything? Is it just that the partner in the situation doesn't want to have to sue the family when this occurs? Or do these extended family members have rights in some states that override wills?




.

Anything that resembles heterosexual marriage does not have to be honored in states with anti-gay marriage laws. When the wills are between two people of the same sex, a family member's lawyer can argue against it because of those laws. And states can't override federal laws. The Jim Crow laws come to mind in unfair measure as does the right to mix races.

So the reason that there is a push for the definition of marriage isn't just for wanting the same label then, like a lot of people here are thinking. It is more because you know that a constitutional change including homosexuals there, would pretty much make all of the anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional, null and void? It would be easier than finding a way to make civil unions between gays with rights you are lacking a law in all states? I know nothing about law So Im only asking to make sure I understand. And I guess I didn't realize how many anti-gay marriage laws there are. But I can certainly believe it because there are lots of other laws that still exist in the books and people just ignore them because they aren't controversial anymore. Im guessing since there are many families against the gay relationships of their family members, that they would use the laws to their advantage. Which is the problem.

[BobbyinTN]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL
Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.
A few years ago I was all for civil unions or calling it anything as long as all the rights were there that heterosexual marriage afforded. Then one of our friend's partner died and the other was left in the cold because of the "similarity" to heterosexual marriage. I already told that story. I found out that every state that forbids gay marriage doesn't not have to honor civil unions and if marriage comes with federal benefits a civil union could be written so that it didn't come with those same benefits, making gay marriage even more "different".

wow!! You BOTH have chores?? I think you might have it better than me!! seriously though, I want to make sure I'm understanding. Basically, the reason there is a push for a constitutional change in the definition of marriage is because civil union would not be a constitutional change. It would be a law defined and in place. If it's a federal law, states can override it, and it is highly unlikely all states would agree to civil union with all the legal provisions you need equally. so inequalities would still exist. With constitutional change, it can't vary? Another thing that confuses me. We can legally will our things to anyone want as long as we don't have a spouse. So how are families able to go in and just take everything? Is it just that the partner in the situation doesn't want to have to sue the family when this occurs? Or do these extended family members have rights in some states that override wills?




.

Anything that resembles heterosexual marriage does not have to be honored in states with anti-gay marriage laws. When the wills are between two people of the same sex, a family member's lawyer can argue against it because of those laws. And states can't override federal laws. The Jim Crow laws come to mind in unfair measure as does the right to mix races.

So the reason that there is a push for the definition of marriage isn't just for wanting the same label then, like a lot of people here are thinking. It is more because you know that a constitutional change including homosexuals there, would pretty much make all of the anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional, null and void? It would be easier than finding a way to make civil unions between gays with rights you are lacking a law in all states? I know nothing about law So Im only asking to make sure I understand. And I guess I didn't realize how many anti-gay marriage laws there are. But I can certainly believe it because there are lots of other laws that still exist in the books and people just ignore them because they aren't controversial anymore. Im guessing since there are many families against the gay relationships of their family members, that they would use the laws to their advantage. Which is the problem.

They are already unconstitutional. I think writing discrimination into the Constitution is a huge miscarriage of justice for all people. It's like Ted Olsen said, if people can vote on the rights of others to get married, what's to stop them from voting on free speech or any other constitutional right. Read that interview and I think he'll answer your questions.

[StevePerryHair]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL
Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.
A few years ago I was all for civil unions or calling it anything as long as all the rights were there that heterosexual marriage afforded. Then one of our friend's partner died and the other was left in the cold because of the "similarity" to heterosexual marriage. I already told that story. I found out that every state that forbids gay marriage doesn't not have to honor civil unions and if marriage comes with federal benefits a civil union could be written so that it didn't come with those same benefits, making gay marriage even more "different".

wow!! You BOTH have chores?? I think you might have it better than me!! seriously though, I want to make sure I'm understanding. Basically, the reason there is a push for a constitutional change in the definition of marriage is because civil union would not be a constitutional change. It would be a law defined and in place. If it's a federal law, states can override it, and it is highly unlikely all states would agree to civil union with all the legal provisions you need equally. so inequalities would still exist. With constitutional change, it can't vary? Another thing that confuses me. We can legally will our things to anyone want as long as we don't have a spouse. So how are families able to go in and just take everything? Is it just that the partner in the situation doesn't want to have to sue the family when this occurs? Or do these extended family members have rights in some states that override wills?




.

Anything that resembles heterosexual marriage does not have to be honored in states with anti-gay marriage laws. When the wills are between two people of the same sex, a family member's lawyer can argue against it because of those laws. And states can't override federal laws. The Jim Crow laws come to mind in unfair measure as does the right to mix races.

So the reason that there is a push for the definition of marriage isn't just for wanting the same label then, like a lot of people here are thinking. It is more because you know that a constitutional change including homosexuals there, would pretty much make all of the anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional, null and void? It would be easier than finding a way to make civil unions between gays with rights you are lacking a law in all states? I know nothing about law So Im only asking to make sure I understand. And I guess I didn't realize how many anti-gay marriage laws there are. But I can certainly believe it because there are lots of other laws that still exist in the books and people just ignore them because they aren't controversial anymore. Im guessing since there are many families against the gay relationships of their family members, that they would use the laws to their advantage. Which is the problem.

They are already unconstitutional. I think writing discrimination into the Constitution is a huge miscarriage of justice for all people. It's like Ted Olsen said, if people can vote on the rights of others to get married, what's to stop them from voting on free speech or any other constitutional right. Read that interview and I think he'll answer your questions.

Yes, I did read it. And yes, that makes sense. But if they could find the anti-gay laws unconstitutional, in all the states, then wouldn't having laws for civil union with all the rights you are lacking possible then?

[BobbyinTN]

They are already unconstitutional. I think writing discrimination into the Constitution is a huge miscarriage of justice for all people. It's like Ted Olsen said, if people can vote on the rights of others to get married, what's to stop them from voting on free speech or any other constitutional right. Read that interview and I think he'll answer your questions.

Yes, I did read it. And yes, that makes sense. But if they could find the anti-gay laws unconstitutional, in all the states, then wouldn't having laws for civil union with all the rights you are lacking possible then?[/quote]

The anti-gay laws are unconstitutional and by declaring that, they basically say that marriage can't be denied because of religous or "moral" reasons and consenting adults should be allowed to be married.

That anyone thought they could deny a right to people based on their sexuality is the travesty here, not the battle of the "definition".

[Sarah]

Labeling gay marriage as civil unions is still "separate but equal". When black people had to use "colored" bathrooms and drinking fountains, they still got to use a bathroom and a drinking fountain, but people eventually realized that wasn't right and fair either...

[donnaplease]

No man, we don't. If we "honored" that vote, why not honor the votes of those people who believed Blacks should remain slaves and should never marry each other or a person of another race?

I'm sure someone more intelligent than me can answer this, but was the option of allowing blacks and women to vote ever put before the people on a ballot? I don't recall that from any history lessons, but it's been (quite) a few years since I was in school.

People like Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr led the way for blacks and women... who is the gay rights leader? Perhaps if there was a figurehead for the movement who could effectively convince the people then this would no longer be an issue. Just a thought.

[donnaplease]

I’m sorry, but agreeing to be “second class” is just not acceptable.

If you're afforded the exact sames rights, how is that unacceptable? And I think there should be a different (albeit non-disparaging) title because, like it or not, it is different. No one is denying that love exists. I think the whole "movement" is being sidetracked by what they deem "tyranny" or whatever else you want to call it, but if you're afforded the exact same rights under some different, but non-disparaging, title, I don't see the problem. Seems to me that this should be about the rights and the fact that, while people can (and probably will) continue to think of you what they want, it's what you think of yourself and what others that you care about and love think of you, that matters most. But when you protest and try to ram this down the throats of Joe voter (no jokes please), you do yourself no favors.

I'm reading this and thinking... having a marriage 'annulled' sounds much nicer than getting 'divorced'. Should people who've been married for 20 years fight to have their marriages annulled if they don't work out? I mean, in the end it's really the same thing, so why 2 different terms? Are divorced people "second class" to those whose marriages are annulled? Of course not! It's kinda the same thing here, Bobby. NOBODY would consider you a second-class citizen because you were in a civil union - you only think that because you don't get what the next guy (and girl) gets in that scenario. Women don't get paid the same as men doing the same job, that has been proven repeatedly for years. It doesn't stop them from taking jobs though. Sometimes compromise is all you're gonna get, and sometimes it's just a starting point.

[Saint John]

I’m sorry, but agreeing to be “second class” is just not acceptable.

If you're afforded the exact sames rights, how is that unacceptable? And I think there should be a different (albeit non-disparaging) title because, like it or not, it is different. No one is denying that love exists. I think the whole "movement" is being sidetracked by what they deem "tyranny" or whatever else you want to call it, but if you're afforded the exact same rights under some different, but non-disparaging, title, I don't see the problem. Seems to me that this should be about the rights and the fact that, while people can (and probably will) continue to think of you what they want, it's what you think of yourself and what others that you care about and love think of you, that matters most. But when you protest and try to ram this down the throats of Joe voter (no jokes please), you do yourself no favors.

I'm reading this and thinking... having a marriage 'annulled' sounds much nicer than getting 'divorced'. Should people who've been married for 20 years fight to have their marriages annulled if they don't work out? I mean, in the end it's really the same thing, so why 2 different terms? Are divorced people "second class" to those whose marriages are annulled? Of course not! It's kinda the same thing here, Bobby. NOBODY would consider you a second-class citizen because you were in a civil union - you only think that because you don't get what the next guy (and girl) gets in that scenario. Women don't get paid the same as men doing the same job, that has been proven repeatedly for years. It doesn't stop them from taking jobs though. Sometimes compromise is all you're gonna get, and sometimes it's just a starting point.

Agreed. I think it all comes back to trying to label something that is different, the same. What's next ... mother/son and father/daughter marriages? Hell, as absolutely disgusting as it is, if you have "love" and "consenting adults," what's to stop this from being next, according to the current gay marriage rights argument?

[donnaplease]

The anti-gay laws are unconstitutional and by declaring that, they basically say that marriage can't be denied because of religous or "moral" reasons and consenting adults should be allowed to be married.

What's an "anti-gay law"? I googled it an the only thing that really came up had to do with Uganda.

[BobbyinTN]

Labeling gay marriage as civil unions is still "separate but equal". When black people had to use "colored" bathrooms and drinking fountains, they still got to use a bathroom and a drinking fountain, but people eventually realized that wasn't right and fair either...

Excellent.

[BobbyinTN]

I’m sorry, but agreeing to be “second class” is just not acceptable.

If you're afforded the exact sames rights, how is that unacceptable? And I think there should be a different (albeit non-disparaging) title because, like it or not, it is different. No one is denying that love exists. I think the whole "movement" is being sidetracked by what they deem "tyranny" or whatever else you want to call it, but if you're afforded the exact same rights under some different, but non-disparaging, title, I don't see the problem. Seems to me that this should be about the rights and the fact that, while people can (and probably will) continue to think of you what they want, it's what you think of yourself and what others that you care about and love think of you, that matters most. But when you protest and try to ram this down the throats of Joe voter (no jokes please), you do yourself no favors.

I'm reading this and thinking... having a marriage 'annulled' sounds much nicer than getting 'divorced'. Should people who've been married for 20 years fight to have their marriages annulled if they don't work out? I mean, in the end it's really the same thing, so why 2 different terms? Are divorced people "second class" to those whose marriages are annulled? Of course not! It's kinda the same thing here, Bobby. NOBODY would consider you a second-class citizen because you were in a civil union - you only think that because you don't get what the next guy (and girl) gets in that scenario. Women don't get paid the same as men doing the same job, that has been proven repeatedly for years. It doesn't stop them from taking jobs though. Sometimes compromise is all you're gonna get, and sometimes it's just a starting point.

An annulment is vastly different than a divorce. An annulment means there was never a marriage in the first place and therefore no one can get alimony or any kind of settlement. Divorce, as you know, means that one partner can sue for damages, child support, alimony and many other issues, just ask Amy Irving. LOL

And it doesn’t matter what people think, it’s what the law says and to differentiate between marriage and civil unions would be a new set of laws governing each union.

Women do get paid in some jobs more or equal to men. The laws are changing for women and no one is asking them to redefine their labor so that it’s not equal to what men do or so that it can be separated from the jobs men do.

[BobbyinTN]

Agreed. I think it all comes back to trying to label something that is different, the same. What's next ... mother/son and father/daughter marriages? Hell, as absolutely disgusting as it is, if you have "love" and "consenting adults," what's to stop this from being next, according to the current gay marriage rights argument?

What stopped that to begin with? If male and female could marry, why haven’t we seen a long line of mothers and sons and fathers and daughters wanting to get married?

Right now gays can marry in 5 states.

25 states allow first cousins to marry.

[BobbyinTN]

The anti-gay laws are unconstitutional and by declaring that, they basically say that marriage can't be denied because of religous or "moral" reasons and consenting adults should be allowed to be married.

What's an "anti-gay law"? I googled it an the only thing that really came up had to do with Uganda.

Donnaplease, could you stop beating around the bush and just say what you really feel? Do you know what "anti" and "gay" and "law" means?

But here's a short list of anti-gay laws or discriminatory laws against gays:

DOMA
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Adoption
20 states have no anti-discrimination laws, so gay people can be fired, evicted and treated like non-humans.
The banning of gay marriage is anti-gay.
In some states gay teachers can't be hired.

[DrFU]

was the option of allowing blacks and women to vote ever put before the people on a ballot? I don't recall that from any history lessons, but it's been (quite) a few years since I was in school.

15th amendment to the Constitution for voting rights for Black citizens; 19th amendment for women's voting rights; these went throught the usual ratification processes in the individual states. We don't vote directly as a nation on anything; even president/vice president go through the Electoral College; system of checks and balances set up by framers of the Constitution who had vigorous disagreements on almost everything and were deeply suspicious of one another.

[donnaplease]

An annulment is vastly different than a divorce. An annulment means there was never a marriage in the first place and therefore no one can get alimony or any kind of settlement. Divorce, as you know, means that one partner can sue for damages, child support, alimony and many other issues, just ask Amy Irving. LOL

Well now Bobby that's just crazy... of course there was a marriage, otherwise how can it be annulled? (I know the difference, I'm just saying it's stupid to differentiate) But you're saying that when an annullment was first introduced, someone had to create a new set of laws governing each proceeding...? Hmmm.

And it doesn’t matter what people think, it’s what the law says and to differentiate between marriage and civil unions would be a new set of laws governing each union.

(See above)

Women do get paid in some jobs more or equal to men. The laws are changing for women and no one is asking them to redefine their labor so that it’s not equal to what men do or so that it can be separated from the jobs men do.

Wrong again, dear. Women have been fighting for equal pay for equal work for years. It's just not in the forefront of the news like it may have once been. We still hear about it from time to time though. Can you cite an example of when a woman would get paid for than a man for doing the exact same job?
The rest of your analogy doesn't really make sense. Sorry dude.

[BobbyinTN]

An annulment is vastly different than a divorce. An annulment means there was never a marriage in the first place and therefore no one can get alimony or any kind of settlement. Divorce, as you know, means that one partner can sue for damages, child support, alimony and many other issues, just ask Amy Irving. LOL

Well now Bobby that's just crazy... of course there was a marriage, otherwise how can it be annulled? (I know the difference, I'm just saying it's stupid to differentiate) But you're saying that when an annullment was first introduced, someone had to create a new set of laws governing each proceeding...? Hmmm.

And it doesn’t matter what people think, it’s what the law says and to differentiate between marriage and civil unions would be a new set of laws governing each union.

(See above)

Women do get paid in some jobs more or equal to men. The laws are changing for women and no one is asking them to redefine their labor so that it’s not equal to what men do or so that it can be separated from the jobs men do.

Wrong again, dear. Women have been fighting for equal pay for equal work for years. It's just not in the forefront of the news like it may have once been. We still hear about it from time to time though. Can you cite an example of when a woman would get paid for than a man for doing the exact same job?
The rest of your analogy doesn't really make sense. Sorry dude.

Sweetie darling, you don’t want it to make sense. You want to antagonize and play passive aggressive. Don’t be obtuse, you know the difference in divorce and annulment if not, look up the meaning here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/

My partner runs a company, the men and women make the same money.
I have my own business, all the employees make the same money.
But you’re right, women are still fighting for equal pay and without laws to insure equal pay, they might not ever achieve it, I mean since they’re unequal to men in every way and not as smart and don’t really deserve it. Those are the arguments given by men who don’t think women should have equal pay. Maybe if you called yourself a man, you could earn the same or come up with a new term that isn’t “woman”, that might work too.

[donnaplease]

The anti-gay laws are unconstitutional and by declaring that, they basically say that marriage can't be denied because of religous or "moral" reasons and consenting adults should be allowed to be married.

What's an "anti-gay law"? I googled it an the only thing that really came up had to do with Uganda.

Donnaplease, could you stop beating around the bush and just say what you really feel? Do you know what "anti" and "gay" and "law" means?

But here's a short list of anti-gay laws or discriminatory laws against gays:

DOMA
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Adoption
20 states have no anti-discrimination laws, so gay people can be fired, evicted and treated like non-humans.
The banning of gay marriage is anti-gay.
In some states gay teachers can't be hired.

#1) Don't be a smartass.
#2) You're using inflammatory words to make things seem like something they're not. I can understand your feelings of frustration about some of these things. If some of what you said is true, you've got bigger things to worry about than whether or not you can wear a wedding band and call yourself married.
#3) It's like saying the legal drinking age is an "anti-teenager law" - hey, they can vote and die for their nation as a soldier at 18, but they can't drink a beer?

I don't know much about DOMA, but it seems to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was put into place (by Clinton I think) in order to give gays a right to serve in the military without the threat of harm. It was... a compromise. One that has gotten a second look here recently.

Not sure what you're getting at with adoption, and those 20 states, I would say that if that's true, then women and minorities better look out as well, which makes it not an 'anti-gay' law at all.

Make your case, Bobby, but do it so that you gain credibility in your argument. Sometimes our emotions get the better of us and we say things that make it harder instead of easier to get what it is that we really want.

[BobbyinTN]

The anti-gay laws are unconstitutional and by declaring that, they basically say that marriage can't be denied because of religous or "moral" reasons and consenting adults should be allowed to be married.

What's an "anti-gay law"? I googled it an the only thing that really came up had to do with Uganda.

Donnaplease, could you stop beating around the bush and just say what you really feel? Do you know what "anti" and "gay" and "law" means?

But here's a short list of anti-gay laws or discriminatory laws against gays:

DOMA
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Adoption
20 states have no anti-discrimination laws, so gay people can be fired, evicted and treated like non-humans.
The banning of gay marriage is anti-gay.
In some states gay teachers can't be hired.

#1) Don't be a smartass.
#2) You're using inflammatory words to make things seem like something they're not. I can understand your feelings of frustration about some of these things. If some of what you said is true, you've got bigger things to worry about than whether or not you can wear a wedding band and call yourself married.
#3) It's like saying the legal drinking age is an "anti-teenager law" - hey, they can vote and die for their nation as a soldier at 18, but they can't drink a beer?

I don't know much about DOMA, but it seems to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was put into place (by Clinton I think) in order to give gays a right to serve in the military without the threat of harm. It was... a compromise. One that has gotten a second look here recently.

Not sure what you're getting at with adoption, and those 20 states, I would say that if that's true, then women and minorities better look out as well, which makes it not an 'anti-gay' law at all.

Make your case, Bobby, but do it so that you gain credibility in your argument. Sometimes our emotions get the better of us and we say things that make it harder instead of easier to get what it is that we really want.

I was taking you seriously for the longest time. Now I'm not. Why not make your case and stop playing around with semantics? Coy doesn't suit you. Live the reality or don't, it's your choice and if you need to educate yourself do it and stop asking stupid questions. If you can't return the respect I've given you in my answers to every question you ask, then move on.

[donnaplease]

But you’re right, women are still fighting for equal pay and without laws to insure equal pay, they might not ever achieve it, I mean since they’re unequal to men in every way and not as smart and don’t really deserve it. Those are the arguments given by men who don’t think women should have equal pay. Maybe if you called yourself a man, you could earn the same or come up with a new term that isn’t “woman”, that might work too.

This is good, you turned the argument. So what you're saying is that there are "anti-women" laws out there. Damn! What am I doing on MR, I should be out there demanding my equal rights, because apparently I'm a second-class citizen or somehow non-human.

I wish you well Bobby. I sincerely mean you no ill will. I'm actually trying to help with my suggestion of a compromise, because of what you described about your friend's situation, not in spite of it. I'm sure it's hard to see it that way because of your experiences. I'm just hoping that by sharing my experiences in my world (and I hear the whole gambit here) that you can understand where some people are coming from too.

[donnaplease]

If you can't return the respect I've given you in my answers to every question you ask, then move on.

I have been very respectful, but when you play games with your words you lose credibility. Fight a good fight, but do it honestly. MLK was a great example, IMO.

As for moving on... when I'm ready, I will do just that. Thanks, boss.

[BobbyinTN]

If you can't return the respect I've given you in my answers to every question you ask, then move on.

I have been very respectful, but when you play games with your words you lose credibility. Fight a good fight, but do it honestly. MLK was a great example, IMO.

As for moving on... when I'm ready, I will do just that. Thanks, boss.

Not the one playing games or playing ignorant. If you're trying to help, you have a very strange way of showing it. There is no compromise in equality, you're either equal or you're not. No word games there.

[BobbyinTN]

Anyone else that has a problem with this religious or otherwise should check out this man's blog and specifically this article. He's a Biblical archaeologist and knows more about the Bible than probably every church congregation and preacher around the nation, and probably the world.

The second link is for his thoughts on the day after the decision on Prop. 8.



http://robertcargill.com/2009/02/15/it- ... on-prop-8/

http://robertcargill.com/2010/08/05/the ... of-prop-8/


No one can refute his facts.

[donnaplease]

If you can't return the respect I've given you in my answers to every question you ask, then move on.

I have been very respectful, but when you play games with your words you lose credibility. Fight a good fight, but do it honestly. MLK was a great example, IMO.

As for moving on... when I'm ready, I will do just that. Thanks, boss.

Not the one playing games or playing ignorant. If you're trying to help, you have a very strange way of showing it. There is no compromise in equality, you're either equal or you're not. No word games there.

No, you're the one playing the 'victim' game. I called you out on your choice of words that were not accurate, just used to incite emotion. Life isn't fair, Bobby. "Equality" is an unachievable goal, someone will always feel infringed upon. (not saying it's right, just think it is reality). If it's an "all-or-nothing" scenario, then you might want to be prepared for nothing. IDK what will happen, but I know that tons of Americans are not on board with this... at this time.

Just for clarification, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in September 1996, not some religious right-wing kook. Barack Obama publicly opposes same-sex marriage (and supports civil unions). Joe Biden publicly opposes same-sex marriage & supports civil unions. I'm not sure what to make of Hillary's views on it, she seems to be partially for it, and for repeal of parts of it. I have a feeling that these folks are really ok with this stuff, but they know that the overwhelming majority of the public is not. It's political and it sucks, but it's the game they have to play if they want to stay in the game.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues ... riage.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scott ... inton.html

This is a very hot-button issue, one that will never be easily decided, at least not at this point in history. As I said, I wish you no ill will, but I am on here representing an alternative viewpoint to yours. I understand that you don't like that, and I don't blame you. Doesn't make it any less valid though.

[Rick]

If you can't return the respect I've given you in my answers to every question you ask, then move on.

I have been very respectful, but when you play games with your words you lose credibility. Fight a good fight, but do it honestly. MLK was a great example, IMO.

As for moving on... when I'm ready, I will do just that. Thanks, boss.

Not the one playing games or playing ignorant. If you're trying to help, you have a very strange way of showing it. There is no compromise in equality, you're either equal or you're not. No word games there.

No, you're the one playing the 'victim' game. I called you out on your choice of words that were not accurate, just used to incite emotion. Life isn't fair, Bobby. "Equality" is an unachievable goal, someone will always feel infringed upon. (not saying it's right, just think it is reality). If it's an "all-or-nothing" scenario, then you might want to be prepared for nothing. IDK what will happen, but I know that tons of Americans are not on board with this... at this time.

Just for clarification, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in September 1996, not some religious right-wing kook. Barack Obama publicly opposes same-sex marriage (and supports civil unions). Joe Biden publicly opposes same-sex marriage & supports civil unions. I'm not sure what to make of Hillary's views on it, she seems to be partially for it, and for repeal of parts of it. I have a feeling that these folks are really ok with this stuff, but they know that the overwhelming majority of the public is not. It's political and it sucks, but it's the game they have to play if they want to stay in the game.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues ... riage.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scott ... inton.html

This is a very hot-button issue, one that will never be easily decided, at least not at this point in history. As I said, I wish you no ill will, but I am on here representing an alternative viewpoint to yours. I understand that you don't like that, and I don't blame you. Doesn't make it any less valid though.

I think most politicians would become gay if it would get them votes.

[BobbyinTN]

If you can't return the respect I've given you in my answers to every question you ask, then move on.

I have been very respectful, but when you play games with your words you lose credibility. Fight a good fight, but do it honestly. MLK was a great example, IMO.

As for moving on... when I'm ready, I will do just that. Thanks, boss.

Not the one playing games or playing ignorant. If you're trying to help, you have a very strange way of showing it. There is no compromise in equality, you're either equal or you're not. No word games there.

No, you're the one playing the 'victim' game. I called you out on your choice of words that were not accurate, just used to incite emotion. Life isn't fair, Bobby. "Equality" is an unachievable goal, someone will always feel infringed upon. (not saying it's right, just think it is reality). If it's an "all-or-nothing" scenario, then you might want to be prepared for nothing. IDK what will happen, but I know that tons of Americans are not on board with this... at this time.

Just for clarification, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in September 1996, not some religious right-wing kook. Barack Obama publicly opposes same-sex marriage (and supports civil unions). Joe Biden publicly opposes same-sex marriage & supports civil unions. I'm not sure what to make of Hillary's views on it, she seems to be partially for it, and for repeal of parts of it. I have a feeling that these folks are really ok with this stuff, but they know that the overwhelming majority of the public is not. It's political and it sucks, but it's the game they have to play if they want to stay in the game.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues ... riage.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scott ... inton.html

This is a very hot-button issue, one that will never be easily decided, at least not at this point in history. As I said, I wish you no ill will, but I am on here representing an alternative viewpoint to yours. I understand that you don't like that, and I don't blame you. Doesn't make it any less valid though.

I am the fuckin’ victim. I cannot marry the person I love. That’s discrimination and I’m the victim of it. You know, sometimes in your world of “conservative” thinking and all the other bullshit you and others spout and the names you call when you can’t win the argument, there is sometimes a true victim and every homosexual that is treated as a second class citizen is one. You represent hate for anything that’s different. You, a woman who some men think should never be allowed to speak in church, run for office and should sit home doing house work and raising kids. You’re a disgrace to equality and fairness and you are so fuckin’ wrong it’s hilarious.

You didn’t call anyone out, you played dumb. And I can go back and get the quotes if you need the proof. Is that what they teach you in “conservative” home schooling? LMAO!

Fuck your insincerity.

It doesn’t really matter if Americans are “on board” with this or not. The courts are now deciding it and it’s gonna be changed, and VERY soon. Why do you think this case ever got as far as it did? Do you think it was an accident? Do you think appointing the Supreme Court Justices Sotomayer and Kagan was an accident?

Our President said what he said to get elected, just as every President does. I have it on good authority he believes in same-sex marriage and so did Clinton, but in the end, they are still politicians and have to play the game. Only President Obama made sure to play it through the lower courts first with a genius judge who could write such an incredible ruling, that no other judge could find him at fault.

Here’s what you have to get used to, homosexuals getting married through Federal Law and living the lives they want to live instead of what’s dictated to them by bigots. Yes, life isn’t fair sometimes.

Everything you’ve written was said about women’s rights, Black’s rights and every other person who was mistreated and discriminated against because people weren’t “on board”. Fuck the people who aren’t on board. They don’t matter. The tyranny of the majority will never be allowed to rule the minority.

Next time you feel like reaching out, reach out to someone who won’t so easily catch onto your game. You’re lousy at it.

Here’s an idea, come out and say what you mean from now on instead of trying to play word games.

[RossValoryRocks]

Bobby you know I support you in this...but something you DO need to consider...

Our Founding Documents say that "All men are created equal"...after that point it is up to you...To put it in perspective: The struggle for LGBT rights has been going on for a far SHORTER time than other rights struggles.

To take SOME of your own arguments here...lets apply it to wealth...poor people are discriminated against because they are poor...everyone has to be equal, so everyone has to make a set dollar amount...no more no less otherwise things would not be equal.

I know it's a trite example...just trying to get you too see what you are saying...or rather HOW you are saying it.

[BobbyinTN]

Bobby you know I support you in this...but something you DO need to consider...

Our Founding Documents say that "All men are created equal"...after that point it is up to you...To put it in perspective: The struggle for LGBT rights has been going on for a far SHORTER time than other rights struggles.

To take SOME of your own arguments here...lets apply it to wealth...poor people are discriminated against because they are poor...everyone has to be equal, so everyone has to make a set dollar amount...no more no less otherwise things would not be equal.

I know it's a trite example...just trying to get you too see what you are saying...or rather HOW you are saying it.

Man, that is so far off the mark. All men are created equal, but they are not treated equally. I think I'm saying it the way everyone else is saying it that doesn't have the right to marry.

People should not vote on the rights of other people. That's the equality that I'm talking about. Can you imagine if the population at the time had been able to vote on the rights of Black people? What about the rights of women? What about the rights of Blacks and Whites marrying?

Prop 8 was unconstitional. The religious right pushed it and now it's biting them in the ass. There's only one way this can go now and that is for homosexuals to have full rights to marriage.

They keep saying marriage isn't a right, well, they've made it in to one and now its a fight to the bitter end.

[Jana]

Homosexuals deserve the right to be married, not just a civil union. We heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage. The divorce rate is 50 percent for first marriages. Second marriages have worse statistics at 67 percent, and third marriages are even worse. There's so many affairs that go on in marriages, online hookups, emotional affairs. Then there are so many marriages where they are living as practically roommates. Where did the love go? The women focus on their children, aren't happy with their husbands, alcoholics in the marriage which ruin the intimacy in their marriage, verbal abuse, physical abuse. The husbands focus on work or golf or whatever and not their spouse because they're unhappy. Many people are tied together because of children and/or financial problems or just a fear of being alone and starting over. Yet, oh, yes, marriage is so revered by we heterosexuals and how dare two people of the same sex get married who love each other. LOL Sorry, I've worked in divorce cases too long and seen a lot of miserable marriages through co-workers, friends, suburbia.

[BobbyinTN]

Homosexuals deserve the right to be married, not just a civil union. We heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage. The divorce rate is 50 percent for first marriages. Second marriages have worse statistics at 67 percent, and third marriages are even worse. There's so many affairs that go on in marriages, online hookups, emotional affairs. Then there are so many marriages where they are living as practically roommates. Where did the love go? The women focus on their children, aren't happy with their husbands, alcoholics in the marriage which ruin the intimacy in their marriage, verbal abuse, physical abuse. The husbands focus on work or golf or whatever and not their spouse because they're unhappy. Many people are tied together because of children and/or financial problems or just a fear of being alone and starting over. Yet, oh, yes, marriage is so revered by we heterosexuals and how dare two people of the same sex get married who love each other. LOL Sorry, I've worked in divorce cases too long and seen a lot of miserable marriages through co-workers, friends, suburbia.

Great post Jana.

[conversationpc]

Homosexuals deserve the right to be married, not just a civil union. We heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage. The divorce rate is 50 percent for first marriages. Second marriages have worse statistics at 67 percent, and third marriages are even worse. There's so many affairs that go on in marriages, online hookups, emotional affairs. Then there are so many marriages where they are living as practically roommates. Where did the love go? The women focus on their children, aren't happy with their husbands, alcoholics in the marriage which ruin the intimacy in their marriage, verbal abuse, physical abuse. The husbands focus on work or golf or whatever and not their spouse because they're unhappy. Many people are tied together because of children and/or financial problems or just a fear of being alone and starting over. Yet, oh, yes, marriage is so revered by we heterosexuals and how dare two people of the same sex get married who love each other. LOL Sorry, I've worked in divorce cases too long and seen a lot of miserable marriages through co-workers, friends, suburbia.

The moral failure of heterosexual couples is no argument FOR gay marriage.