# Why people say Gay marrage is just the tip of the iceberg



## ballen0351 (Feb 7, 2012)

Gay marriage opponets say where the line stop first gays than animals then buildings.  Pro-Gay marriage supportes say that will never happen.


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/peta-sues-seaworld-over-killer-whale-enslavement.html
Five killer whales got their day in court Monday.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the vocal group behind those eye-popping anti-fur ads, filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld for capturing and "enslaving" orcas named as plaintiffs in the case.
 PETA Attorney Jeffrey Kerr argued that the big mammals should be protected under the 13th Amendment.
"Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Ulises and Corky have been captive and subjected to treatment that we feel is slavery,"

"for the first time in our nation's history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human."



So now we want Constitutional rights for whales how long until people as for the right to have a inner mammialian marriage


----------



## granfire (Feb 7, 2012)

Did you bump your head?

PETA has been after that for pretty much what? Two decades? maybe three?

And no, it ain't got nothing to do with marriage, other than PETA using every tool possible to force their way upon the rest of us.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 7, 2012)

granfire said:


> Did you bump your head?
> 
> PETA has been after that for pretty much what? Two decades? maybe three?
> 
> And no, it ain't got nothing to do with marriage, other than PETA using every tool possible to force their way upon the rest of us.


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Sorry I had a responce typed out but it didnt post so here is the short version:

My point was things that we thought 'NUTS' 20 years ago are more mainstream now.  So 20 years from now when Whales have "rights" then what?

Where do we draw the line?  Like I said before I dont care about gay marriage if its passes by the people then great.  If its passed by legislature and not challenged great.  But where is the line?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 7, 2012)

I agree that there are always people trying to push the envelope; to redefine civil rights to include an ever-expanding pool.  I'm sure there are people who would like to see trees redefined as having the rights of human beings.  There are also people trying to define a fertilized human egg as having the full rights of any human as well.

For what it's worth, I agree that there are constantly challenges to our basic rights from both the left and the right; more from the left in general.  However, I don't think it's an agenda or a conspiracy.  I think more often there are a lot of people with different notions of what should be protected with 'human' status.  Many of them identify as 'liberal', so we end up with the idea that there is a left-wing agenda.  Probably not.  On the other hand, you don't see the left who want, say same-sex marriage exactly decrying those who want dolphins given the same protections as humans.  They leave it be; which makes it seem as if they're for it.


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

speciesist.:angel:


----------



## Steve (Feb 7, 2012)

It's a sure sign of the apocalypse.  I seriously think I just saw the four horsemen.  Or...  shoot.  I live in a rural community.  It could have been four kids on horses, to be honest.  But it COULD'VE been the four horsemen of the apocalypse.  I think it's time to give up completely.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 7, 2012)

Because if gay people are allowed to marry, divorce and have all those rights and responsibilities and headaches that 'normal' people do, the world might end, some "God" might have another earthquake or cause more crazies to kill more innocents, Hitler might come back from the dead and somehow Britney's 24 hour 'marriage' might be even less 'special' than it is.  Animals might marry trees, and more men of the cloth might molest more kids. You're own marriage vows will suddenly be meaningless and those 2 gays across the country will be at fault.  They will have caused you to cheat and beat. It's all going to be their fault.

Better we nip this in the *** now, and just order them to wear pink shirts and report to government paid for reprogramming. 

We'll lose a lot of brave "Dog" fearing Amerikans along the way. Lots of empty closets. But don't you worry. Soon as we get them properly licensed we can get the electrodes connected and fix em by God. Or Mr. Zappy.  Either way, someone's gonna be screaming "Jesus" and there will be lightning.

/sarcasm.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> It's a sure sign of the apocalypse.  I seriously think I just saw the four horsemen.  Or...  shoot.  I live in a rural community.  It could have been four kids on horses, to be honest.  But it COULD'VE been the four horsemen of the apocalypse.  I think it's time to give up completely.



Nothing to do with end of the world.  Its a question where do we draw a line?  25 years ago gay marriage was hardly a thought in main stream America.  In 25 years from now what will be the next thing fought for?  Whales?  After all who are we to stand. In the way of love?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 7, 2012)

Same sex relationships have been around forever. 
Same sex marriages, same.

Multi-partner marriages....same.

World hasn't ended. No fire, no brimstone, and so on.

If it can give an informed consent, who cares?

As to marrying animals, children, plants or rocks....if it can sign the papers, so be it.  Won't be any worse than when that horse became pope.


----------



## billc (Feb 7, 2012)

Soooo...

Bob, allice, ted, steve, jill, kathy and dave are all married...to each other.   They have in their marriage bobby, allice, teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane as minor children.  

Bob wants to divorce Jill, and dave but not ted alice or steve and he claims direct parentage and demands sole custody of teddy and jane but not teddy, frank, grace and stevey.  Jill and dave demand alimony and child support for teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane bobby and joint custody of teddy and jane.  The court then requires dna testing of all involved to sort out which children are biological offspring of which parents... 

You know, just typing this out is a problem, imagine trying to sort this out in court, considering that the family courts aren't already jammed to the gills  with divorces of single male/female couples.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 7, 2012)

So what?
That's -their- problem.

Not mine. Not yours. No one else but their own.

They, their gods or not-gods, lawyers and a nice judge who gets paid to worry about these things can do it.

Won't effect me and mine a bit.


----------



## Carol (Feb 7, 2012)

What next?  What next?  They'll come for our sports of course...why, grown men will be sporting pink jerseys, and skating on pink ice and....just what is this world coming to? :lol:





In all seriousness, the AHL Manchester Monarchs have teamed up with a local hospital (and not a more ubiquitous national foundation) for their annual Pink In The Rink game this Saturday.  Game is to raise money and awareness for Breast Cancer, for anyone in New England this weekend, please join me to cheer on the toughest hockey players in the world 

http://www.catholicmedicalcenter.org/Hospital/News.aspx?SearchType=NewsItem&NewsID=179

Another thing that mainstream America wouldn't have thought of 25 years ago....but somehow we'll get through it.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

Don't people think there's some kinky minds about when it comes to discussing gay marriage and suggesting it will be people marrying animals next? Here and in Europe we've had the religious and the 'it's not natural' arguments against gay marriage but not the 'they'll be marrying animals next' one, the pro gay marriage folks prevailed though. Perhaps the Old World is old fashioned in that we tend to stick to marriage to humans.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

People who want to marry animals can marry a furry.  Best of both worlds.

*yif*  *yif*


Google it.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> 
> Sorry I had a responce typed out but it didnt post so here is the short version:
> 
> ...


Where would you suggest that the line should be drawn?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Soooo...
> 
> Bob, allice, ted, steve, jill, kathy and dave are all married...to each other.   They have in their marriage bobby, allice, teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane as minor children.
> 
> ...



That's what prenups are for.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Where would you suggest that the line should be drawn?



I honestly don't know.  I personally believe the govt shouldn't be in the marriage business.  However since they are and have outlawed other forms of marriage like multiple spouses then there is already a line so to speak.  It was made for a reason so should anything go?  I don't know.  Does it effect me what others do yes and no.  When all these silly reality shows start with I wannay marry a dog,  or whatever then it has an effect on society.  Everyone says oh animal marriage will.never happen well people already try it.  Its only time before PETA people try marrying animals as another method of "freeing" them.  People out there like to push the envelope just to do it even if they have no desire the outcome.  I remember a super feminine gay male that went to my police academy.  He had no desire to really be a cop he just wanted people to tell him he can't so he could become a "victim"  he would purposely act like a weak sissy to the point the academy finally did throw him out.  He tried to sue for discrimination but the case was tossed out.  I don't see that same outcome in a more liberal court system.  Now don't get me wrong I work with many gay officers an d some are very good officers but this guy didn't want to be an officer he wanted to push the envelope.  Even the other gay students in my class hated him and knew what his goal was.  So I can totally see people trying to force catholic priests to marry gay couple and then trying to sue


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason.  So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't.  I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer.  Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored.  If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon.  Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Don't people think there's some kinky minds about when it comes to discussing gay marriage and suggesting it will be people marrying animals next? Here and in Europe we've had the religious and the 'it's not natural' arguments against gay marriage but not the 'they'll be marrying animals next' one, the pro gay marriage folks prevailed though. Perhaps the Old World is old fashioned in that we tend to stick to marriage to humans.



Not really I watched a show the other day about a woman in your neck of the woods that wanted to marry a wall.  She was madly in love with this wall.  Now I believe that's more mental abnormality then anything but it happens.


----------



## Carol (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason.  So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't.  I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer.  Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored.  If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon.  Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.



We did exactly that in NH.  It is a practical and reasonable compromise in my view.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason. So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't. I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer. Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored. If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon. Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.



Here in Pennslyvania, the clergy are authorized to perform a marriage, as are every judge and mayor in the state. While there are many idiots who may well push a boundary, it is difficult to construe authorization as requirement, though ***-covering for the clergy is acceptable. However, it is also right and proper to expect that those hired or elected to a position of secular authority, such as a judge or mayor, should be required by law to perform those same secular duties... such a same sex marriage.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

Marriage being a civil ceremony, all civil servants authorized to perform a marriage, should marry anyone who qualifies.

Churches who offer a religious ceremony, can follow their own rules.

The fact that clergy is authorized by the state to perform marriage is secondary here. 
They are paid by the church, they can follow the church's rules.

Judges, are paid by the public, so should follow the law.


Marriage being a civil ceremony is a matter of public record.
All states are required by the US Constitution to recognize each others public records.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Here in Pennslyvania, the clergy are authorized to perform a marriage, as are every judge and mayor in the state. While there are many idiots who may well push a boundary, it is difficult to construe authorization as requirement, though ***-covering for the clergy is acceptable. However, it is also right and proper to expect that those hired or elected to a position of secular authority, such as a judge or mayor, should be required by law to perform those same secular duties... such a same sex marriage.



I dont think anyone should be required to preform the marriage.  If you disagree then you should be allowed to disagree.  Would you want someone to preform your wedding if you knew they were against it? I wouldnt Id rather find someone that was ok with it so I didnt risk them messing up my special day. There would be plenty of judges and clerks around that wount have a problem do it.  
On the flip side I also see what your saying as a police officer I do things sometimes I dont agree with but Its my job so I dont really have an answer.


----------



## Steve (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing to do with end of the world.  Its a question where do we draw a line?  25 years ago gay marriage was hardly a thought in main stream America.  In 25 years from now what will be the next thing fought for?  Whales?  After all who are we to stand. In the way of love?


25 years ago?  That puts us in the 80s, when politicians and religious leaders were vehemently working to convince everyone that gay was a bad habit or a disease, like drug addiction or alcoholism. 







10 years before that and being openly gay could realistically cost you your job, your home or your family.  10 years before that and you risked your life by coming out.  

Point is, I agree with you that we are not where we were 25 years ago.  But where you see a problem, I see progress.  I see us, as a society, moving in a direction that's extremely positive with regards to people who I absolutely believe do not choose to be gay.   And when you put it on a timeline, it becomes very clear that we are where we are now as a society precisely because of milestones that have been achieved.

So, in summary.  You're right.  This wasn't being talked about in mainstream society.  But, I disagree that this is represents something negative.  

But I do want to point out that it was an issue in the late 80s among gay and lesbian couples, and in 1993, Hawaii was the first State to find the prohibition against gay marriage to be unconstitutional.   Baehr vs Lewin really set the wheels in motion.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 8, 2012)

I don't see what the issue is, as long as those involved are consenting adults...so things like marrying an animal would not be allowed, because the animal can't give its' consent.

The "reason" gay marriage is not allowed is simple; prejudice.  Yeah, 25 years ago it was not normal to see gay people as committed people in a relationship.  25 years ago it was also odd to see interacial couples.  That does not mean that there haven't always been gays or interacial couples.  Interacial couples marrying hasn't has a negative effect on society as it was claimed it would  and I have yet to see a convincing arguement on how gays marrying would either.  To me that is the crux of whether it should be allowed.  Why shouldn't it?  If the answers are nonsense, like it isn't natural, God doesn't like it, or it is the tip of the iceberg, then it should be allowed.  Prejudice should not be the basis of law.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Steve said:


> 25 years ago?  That puts us in the 80s, when politicians and religious leaders were vehemently working to convince everyone that gay was a bad habit or a disease, like drug addiction or alcoholism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree progress is a good thing.  My question was when is enough enough?  They way people talk about gay rights in the past is what people say about Constitutional rights for whales today  Its nuts that will never happen ect.  So in 2045 will people be trying to marry a dolphin?  Dolphins can respond to question and shake there heads yes so the annimals cant say yes wont apply.  Is there a line we should not cross?  Or is everything ok as long as your happy?
I think there should be a line Im just not sure where it should be.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.



And that is exactly how the Canadian law is phrased. In the 8+ years it has been Federal law, it has never been challenged. Mostly because for those who wish a religious ceremony, there are plenty of clergy of every religion and denomination that will perform the ceremony.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think anyone should be required to preform the marriage.  If you disagree then you should be allowed to disagree.  Would you want someone to preform your wedding if you knew they were against it? I wouldnt Id rather find someone that was ok with it so I didnt risk them messing up my special day. There would be plenty of judges and clerks around that wount have a problem do it.
> On the flip side I also see what your saying as a police officer I do things sometimes I dont agree with but Its my job so I dont really have an answer.



That's a little tougher. For those of u living in larger metropolitain areas, it would never be a problem. But in smaller towns, where there may only be one or 2 people to perform marriages, I can see same sex marriage not being available. And let's face it, civil marriage is not exactly a long, involved ceremony. It's mostly signing a contract.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> And that is exactly how the Canadian law is phrased. In the 8+ years it has been Federal law, it has never been challenged. Mostly because for those who wish a religious ceremony, there are plenty of clergy of every religion and denomination that will perform the ceremony.



I would tend to doubt that Roman Catholic priests in Canada perform same-sex marriages.  Perhaps there are some that do, but definitely not with the blessing of Rome; it would be considered an invalid marriage by the Church.  Are there Roman Catholics who are gay?  You bet there are.

And again, just because it has never been challenged in Canada is no bellwether for the USA.  I can predict with some certainty that it WILL be challenged in court at some point, and plenty of same-sex marriage supporters and haters of the Catholic Church (we have a few right here on MT) will fervently demand that the RCC be forced to perform such ceremonies.  Do you seriously doubt that will happen?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Prejudice should not be the basis of law.



All laws are based on Prejudice.  A group of people say something is bad and a law is made.  Drugs are illegal because a group of people say they are bad.  There is another group that say they are not bad and people should be allowed to do what they want.  Age of consent laws are enacted because people said sex with minors was bad.  There is a group of people that believe sex with children is natural and a good thing.  
quoted from Nambla site: http://www.nambla.org/stories.html
Man/Boy Love is as old as love itself, and stories of it have been told for thousands of years.

Change man/boy to gay and its the same argument. peopl give as to why Gay marriage is ok.

Now Im not saying Nambla and gay marriage are the same lvl  One is clearly and rightfully illegal the other is not.  But again I ask where is the line drawn.  If your OK with Gay marriage do you see a line?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> That's a little tougher. For those of u living in larger metropolitain areas, it would never be a problem. But in smaller towns, where there may only be one or 2 people to perform marriages, I can see same sex marriage not being available. And let's face it, civil marriage is not exactly a long, involved ceremony. It's mostly signing a contract.



Yeah I thought of that after I posted.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Not really I watched a show the other day about a woman in your neck of the woods that wanted to marry a wall. She was madly in love with this wall. Now I believe that's more mental abnormality then anything but it happens.



That as may be but it wasn't my point that people don't do such things but that here politicians, religious leaders etc don't bring that up as an argument for not having gay marriage, it's seen for what it is an odd occurance not a reason fro banning something, I don't honestly think it occurs to anyone that allowing gay marraige leads to people marrying animals or inanimate objects


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Its nuts that will never happen ect.  So in 2045 will people be trying to marry a dolphin?  Dolphins can respond to question and shake there heads yes so the annimals cant say yes wont apply.  Is there a line we should not cross?  Or is everything ok as long as your happy?
> I think there should be a line Im just not sure where it should be.



No a dolphin cannot consent to marriage, even if it can nod its' head.  In the same way that a two year old can nod his head, there is lack of informed consent.  This is a non-issue designed to stoke fear in people so they will not give equal rights to human beings.  It is sad to see that so many people let it work.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> No a dolphin cannot consent to marriage, even if it can nod its' head.  In the same way that a two year old can nod his head, there is lack of informed consent.  This is a non-issue designed to stoke fear in people so they will not give equal rights to human beings.  It is sad to see that so many people let it work.



It is not a non-issue, unfortunately.  As much as you and I might agree that a dolphin cannot give consent, I am certain I can find people who earnestly believe that dolphins are sentient beings as smart or smarter than humans and entitled to the same rights as humans.  Sentient creatures granted the same rights as humans obviously can give consent.  Do I agree?  No.  But are there people who believe it?  Yes.  So it is not a non-issue.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> No a dolphin cannot consent to marriage, even if it can nod its' head.  In the same way that a two year old can nod his head, there is lack of informed consent.  This is a non-issue designed to stoke fear in people so they will not give equal rights to human beings.  It is sad to see that so many people let it work.



So for you informed consent is the line?  So as long as you have consent between two parties they can marry?
I think thats were I fall as well with exception for age.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So for you informed consent is the line?  So as long as you have consent between two parties they can marry?
> I think thats were I fall as well with exception for age.



Yes, informed consent.  That is why a child cannot marry.  While a child could give thier consent, they do not have the experience or knowledge to understand the consequences, so the consent would not be "informed."  Much like a child cannot enter into a legally binding contract...which is what marriage is to the state.  So the age thing is moot too


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Yes, informed consent.  That is why a child cannot marry.  While a child could give thier consent, they do not have the experience or knowledge to understand the consequences, so the consent would not be "informed."  Much like a child cannot enter into a legally binding contract...which is what marriage is to the state.  So the age thing is moot too



Many states have very low 'Age of Consent' laws, FYI.  Some have stricter laws regarding marriage to relatives as well.  And of course, we have many new members of our US society among whom the notion of child brides is not unheard of.  There is nothing stopping such groups from attempting to get the laws changed to allow for such things here; there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.

I think all anyone is saying is that everything is one the table once you redefine what marriage is.  We have had this discussion on MT before; if you look, you will find people saying that if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land; then what's to stop three-way marriage from being legal too?  And you will find some MT members who said "DAMN RIGHT!  WE SHOULD HAVE THREE-WAY MARRIAGE!"  They were not, to the extent that I can determine, joking.  So when people voice their concerns about where this will all end, I think they have a very valid point.  You may think it's one change, one time, and that's the end of it.  Many others see this as a stepping stone to get what they want, which is very different from what you may see as acceptable.  But once the door is open, it's open.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 8, 2012)

So Bill, just so I understand, it is okay to deny equal rights under the law to a large segment of our population because some people might take it too far?  Given that line of logic, there are many laws that should be struck down immediately, and our constitution becomes meaningless because just about every section could be twisted to unentended consequences...which happens and is why we have a supreme court.  This reasoning for not giving people equal rights does not pass the logic test, in my opinion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> So Bill, just so I understand, it is okay to deny equal rights under the law to a large segment of our population because some people might take it too far?  Given that line of logic, there are many laws that should be struck down immediately, and our constitution becomes meaningless because just about every section could be twisted to unentended consequences...which happens and is why we have a supreme court.  This reasoning for not giving people equal rights does not pass the logic test, in my opinion.


We already dont have equal rights in marriage laws.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would tend to doubt that Roman Catholic priests in Canada perform same-sex marriages.  Perhaps there are some that do, but definitely not with the blessing of Rome; it would be considered an invalid marriage by the Church.  Are there Roman Catholics who are gay?  You bet there are.



In church as a full RC rite? don't think so. But I would not be surprised if some did officiate at civil ceremonies, with some religious trappings. And that's how it should be. I would actively oppose any attempt to force religious institutions to perform same sex weddings. 



> And again, just because it has never been challenged in Canada is no bellwether for the USA.  I can predict with some certainty that it WILL be challenged in court at some point, and plenty of same-sex marriage supporters and haters of the Catholic Church (we have a few right here on MT) will fervently demand that the RCC be forced to perform such ceremonies.  Do you seriously doubt that will happen?




I'm sure it's been thought about. But the thing is, the content of the legislation was analyzed by constitutional experts and brought to our Supreme Court to ensure that the language and intent would survive a challenge. That goes a long way to discourage challenges.

And you can't not pass legislation because it may get challenged in the future. Write it right the first time.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

> But the thing is, the content of the legislation was analyzed by  constitutional experts and brought to our Supreme Court to ensure that  the language and intent would survive a challenge.



Not how it works in the US.  Here lobbyists write complex bills that we the citizens aren't allowed to know the contents of until after out paid for representatives vote on it. Hell, most of them don't even know what's in them as who reads anything before signing it these days. So they vote based on bullet point summaries provided by the actual authors of the bill which may or may not be accurate.
 Then it's like Christmas in that they open the bill to see just how badly "We The People" have been ****ed. Even former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insisted they had to pass bills before we could find out what was in them. Several senators are on record of not caring if the bills were even legal, they just needed to be passed.  Ironically, the Confederate States had a clause in their Constitution that said all bills before their congress must validate against their Constitution prior to being brought to a vote.  They lost that argument and war.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

Oh, most of the time our politicians pass stupid **** too. They just wanted to make sure that one was iron-clad.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

So other then the name what's the difference between marriage  and civil union?  If they ate lehally identical then the fight is just over the word marriage?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So other then the name what's the difference between marriage bill and civil union?  If they ate lehally identical then the fight is just over the word marriage?




That is exactly what the proponent of civil union contend. It would be exactly the same, just not use the word marriage. Of course that means that every legal document that references marriage has to be ammended, and voted on to also include civil union. And that moving forward making sure that both marriage and civil union are referenced. That is absolute lunacy. How many laws and statutes use marriage? How much time would be wasted in rewriting them all? how much would it cost? Remember that you can't just add 'and civil union' wherever marriage is used and call it a day. The ammended law has to go through the process all over again.

The alternative is to amend the definition of marriage from 'one man and one woman' to 'two adults'. One change that automatically changes everything.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So other then the name what's the difference between marriage  and civil union?  If they ate lehally identical then the fight is just over the word marriage?



Not exactly.  There are some rights and privileges that only attach to a husband-wife relationship.  For example, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their partner.  Not true of civil unions that I'm aware of.  A spouse doesn't have to go through probate or pay inheritance taxes etc when their partner passes away.  There are other things too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

Here's a "few"
*Number of Legal Benefits:*

_Marriage:_ Over 1,049 federal *and* state level benefits (see list)
_Civil Unions:_ Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)
 *Tax Relief:*

_Marriage:_ Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
_Civil Unions:_ Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.
 *Medical Decisions:*

_Marriage:_ Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
_Civil Unions:_ Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.
 *Gifts:*

_Marriage:_ Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
_Civil Unions:_ Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.
 *Death Benefits:*

_Marriage:_ In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
_Civil Unions:_ Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.
 *Child/Spousal Support:*

_Marriage:_ In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
_Civil Unions:_ In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.
 *Immigration Rights:*

_Marriage:_ U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
_Civil Unions:_ U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)
http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's a "few"
> *Number of Legal Benefits:*
> 
> _Marriage:_ Over 1,049 federal *and* state level benefits (see list)
> ...



So in other words the civil Union is just another screw job?


----------



## Steve (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> The bottom of my post didn't post for some reason.  So to answer if I think gay marriage should be the line then no I don't.  I could care less if gays want to marry I say spread the misery around its not fair only straight guys get to suffer.  Im more upset about the way its getting passed and how the people are being ignored.  If it were put up for a vote here which it may the Governor wants a gay marriage bill soon.  Id vote it down unless there was a provision in the law allowing clergy the right to refuse to preform the ceremony then I would consider it.


I think that a clear delineation should be made between a religious ceremony and a civil one.  Although for the record, that line already exists.  There are many churches in States that do not recognize gay marriage performing ceremonies for gay couples.  They're free to do so in any State.  The question isn't legality of the ceremony.  It's whether or not the union is recognized as a marriage for legal purposes.  

Simply put, churches are already free to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage, independent of the legal rulings in the State.  Why would that change, and do we need another law (or a rider on a law) to allow something that is already allowed?


----------



## Steve (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So other then the name what's the difference between marriage  and civil union?  If they ate lehally identical then the fight is just over the word marriage?


While there are some notable differences outlined by others, that's the real question.  Isn't it?  If States are willing to grant gay couples a civil union that is "the same as" a marriage, then what's the problem?  If people who are vehemently opposed to "gay marriage" are okay with the idea of a civil union that grants identical rights, again, then what's the problem?

The answer to your question is, I think on both sides, yes.  The issue is whether or not gay people can be "married."


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Great points on both sides.  And thank you all for having an adult conversation on a topic that can easily turn nasty at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

If 2 gay men or women marry....

How does it effect you?

Doesn't effect me, good or bad.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If 2 gay men or women marry....
> 
> How does it effect you?
> 
> Doesn't effect me, good or bad.



It does not effect me.  My worry is what's next and where do we as a society say enough is enough.  Apparently most polls show society says this is too far.  I don't think gay marriage will end society but I can see people pushing the envelope.  I don't really know where I stand right now if it were put up to a vote.  It does not effect me but I also don't see a reason to change it.  I have seen some very good arguments as to why it should be changed and I've seen some on why it shouldn't.  I think when it comes up for a vote ill have to see how its written.  If  churches are not required to marry anyone I may vote for it.  But after seeing how churches are going to be forced to pay healthcare costs for birth control I don't know if I trust the govt not to go after churches


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2012)

My understanding was that the healthcare was for a hospital, which may not be a religious institution, regardless of who runs it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> My understanding was that the healthcare was for a hospital, which may not be a religious institution, regardless of who runs it.



Thats what I ment Church run Hospitals I was on a cell phone.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> It does not effect me.  My worry is what's next and where do we as a society say enough is enough.  Apparently most polls show society says this is too far.  I don't think gay marriage will end society but I can see people pushing the envelope.  I don't really know where I stand right now if it were put up to a vote.  It does not effect me but I also don't see a reason to change it.  I have seen some very good arguments as to why it should be changed and I've seen some on why it shouldn't.  I think when it comes up for a vote ill have to see how its written.  If  churches are not required to marry anyone I may vote for it.  But after seeing how churches are going to be forced to pay healthcare costs for birth control I don't know if I trust the govt not to go after churches



If a guy or gal wants to marry the toaster.

How does that effect you?

Doesn't effect me either way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If a guy or gal wants to marry the toaster.
> 
> How does that effect you?
> 
> Doesn't effect me either way.


for starters I took a vow before god to love and honor my wife and for some guy to make a mockery of that by trying to marry a toaster would bother me.
2nd what does it say about our society when we condone that behavior.  That arguement can be applied to anything who cares if a guy smokes crack it don't effect you.  We have rules for a society to work and we can't make exceptions for every group that decides they are a victim.  Some things are not equal no matter how hard people try to make you believe it is


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If a guy or gal wants to marry the toaster.
> 
> How does that effect you?
> 
> Doesn't effect me either way.


how does it effect you if they outlaw gay marriage
it does not effect me so why should I vote to change it


----------



## Steve (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> for starters I took a vow before god to love and honor my wife and for some guy to make a mockery of that by trying to marry a toaster would bother me.
> 2nd what does it say about our society when we condone that behavior.  That arguement can be applied to anything who cares if a guy smokes crack it don't effect you.  We have rules for a society to work and we can't make exceptions for every group that decides they are a victim.  Some things are not equal no matter how hard people try to make you believe it is



So.  You're saying that you would love and honor your wife less?

2nd, while the hyperbolic toaster thing is easy to argue against, let's keep it real.  We are still talking about two adults who want to get married.  We are even still talking about real marriage.  Love, honor...  Respect.  Til death do they part.  

While it is gay marriage, it's not toasters or dolphins.  


Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Marriage means something to me.  Its important to me.  The best way I can explain it is like this
the American flag means something to me.  I swore to protect it, I tear yo when its brought out during football games, I lost friends who defended it.  And it bothers me to see protesters crap on it.  Does it effect me no its not my flag and im not even there to see it but it does bother me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> for starters I took a vow before god to love and honor my wife and for some guy to make a mockery of that by trying to marry a toaster would bother me.
> 2nd what does it say about our society when we condone that behavior.  That arguement can be applied to anything who cares if a guy smokes crack it don't effect you.  We have rules for a society to work and we can't make exceptions for every group that decides they are a victim.  Some things are not equal no matter how hard people try to make you believe it is



Some people don't believe in your god.  His rules don't apply to them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Some people don't believe in your god.  His rules don't apply to them.



Ok so why should someone that does believe compromise for them?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Steve said:


> So.  You're saying that you would love and honor your wife less?


not at all


> 2nd, while the hyperbolic toaster thing is easy to argue against, let's keep it real.  We are still talking about two adults who want to get married.  We are even still talking about real marriage.  Love, honor...  Respect.  Til death do they part.
> 
> While it is gay marriage, it's not toasters or dolphins.
> 
> ...


your correct.  Ill be honest I can't explain my resistance to it.  Your arguments are correct thoughtful and make perfect sense to me.  There is just something that bothers me about it and I don't know what it is or why.  You def won the argument but I still am on the fence on the issue and I have no logical explanation as to why.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so why should someone that does believe compromise for them?



Who is asking you to compromise? Just let others who believe differently live their own lives. You can live yours however you like.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Who is asking you to compromise? Just let others who believe differently live their own lives. You can live yours however you like.



But if you believe gay marriage is wrong then you are asking them to.  Telling them to shut up and mind your own business won't work.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> But if you believe gay marriage is wrong then you are asking them to.  Telling them to shut up and mind your own business won't work.



But I don't want them to shut up and mind my own business.  I just want them to shut up and stay out of anyone's business but their own.


Here's the thing.  They are entitled to their view, and I mine, regardless of how wrong we each see the other.

I don't see the big deal. It's a personal thing, and means whatever the person making that decision wants it to mean. 

I didn't have a church wedding. According to some folks, I'm still living in sin because I didn't have the god of their choice oversee my wedding.
Don't care. My wedding. Not theirs.  I've got the papers from the State that gives me all the legal protection I and my spouse need/deserve/get.

All I seek is that any other -2- people of legal age and informed consent, can have what I got.  What any gods offer, is between the parties involved in that deal.

You got a god that doesn't like 2 guys falling in love, wanting to be there for each other for the rest of this existence, fine. His call, his faith, his followers.

But don't tell me it's a 'sanctity of marriage' thing when the hetro divorce rate is 55% in the US, when celebs like Brittany make a mockery of it, and 'stars' like Zha Zha and Liz have more weddings than I have pics of naked women in my portfolio.

I also don't think Pol-marriage is wrong. My lines drawn at 'human, of legal age, able to make an informed decision'.  You have a different line.
That's your choice.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 9, 2012)

Many people in our society have been trained for so long that homosexuality is a character flaw or sin that it has become an accepted, ingrained, knee jerk, emotion.  Prejudice of this nature is difficult to overcome.  Discussions like we've had here are a step in the right direction.  We have been respectful of each other so anger does not become a part of the equation.  Arguements have been made trying to use logic as the base.

I honestly don't have an issue if you have religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin.  If that's the case you shouldn't marry someone the same sex as you.  However, I don't think someone's religious belief should be the basis from which we as a nation deny equal rights to a significant portion of our populous.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats what I ment Church run Hospitals I was on a cell phone.




Hinges on whether a Church run hospital is a religious institution or not. Wrong thread to debate here. 

Suffice it to say that protecting clergy from having to perform same sex weddings is possible. It's been done here, I'm sure the law could be crafted to do it in the US as well.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Many people in our society have been trained for so long that homosexuality is a character flaw or sin that it has become an accepted, ingrained, knee jerk, emotion.  Prejudice of this nature is difficult to overcome.  Discussions like we've had here are a step in the right direction.  We have been respectful of each other so anger does not become a part of the equation.  Arguements have been made trying to use logic as the base.


I don't think its a character flaw.  I personally believe homosexuality is a mental abnormally.  Their  brains are wired differently.  No different then bipolar or any other mental issue.  Does not make them bad or sinful or evil.  Just means there brains are not wired the same way a majority of the rest of world.  So I don't have a religious objection to anything.  Im not sure I have any objection to it actually.  I think im more against it because of the way its been forced on people.  I say put it up for a vote let the chips fall where they may and deal with the outcome.



> I honestly don't have an issue if you have religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin.  If that's the case you shouldn't marry someone the same sex as you.  However, I don't think someone's religious belief should be the basis from which we as a nation deny equal rights to a significant portion of our populous.



I think people make laws for a society they want to live in.  You vote for people that look at the world as closely as you do with hopes they will vote your beliefs.  Im not sure where im going with this other then people do vote their beliefs religious or otherwise


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't think its a character flaw.  I personally believe homosexuality is a mental abnormally.  Their  brains are wired differently.  No different then bipolar or any other mental issue.  Does not make them bad or sinful or evil.  Just means there brains are not wired the same way a majority of the rest of world.  So I don't have a religious objection to anything.  Im not sure I have any objection to it actually.  I think im more against it because of the way its been forced on people.  I say put it up for a vote let the chips fall where they may and deal with the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I think people make laws for a society they want to live in.  You vote for people that look at the world as closely as you do with hopes they will vote your beliefs.  Im not sure where im going with this other then people do vote their beliefs religious or otherwise



Well, democracy is dictatorship of the majority.
In enlightened countries there is a means of checks and balances to ensure that minorities are not treat upon.

You know, like when the majority makes laws to exclude minorities from due course etc and denies basic rights.

Right now we are 'just' talking about the right to spend your life - legally - with the person of your choice, regardless on how the Good Lord saw fit to run the plumbing through, with all the legal - read worldly - ramifications and rights, not just obligations. 
Like this little thing: The daughter of my Mom's friend and her wife are having a baby. In a 'normal' union the other, non-birthgiving partner is automatically added as parent on the birth certificate. The wife in this union has to adopt the baby to legally be a parent. 

And that is not in the US, but in some of the more enlightened European countries. 

Marriage was in the past a union to provide the economic stability to raise children. 
It was not meant to be divorced
It was not meant to be love, only economics. Love marriages are a relatively new thing since the Victorian and Romantic era. 
Now we think it has to be love and religious.

Well, considering that the Christian religions bill themselves under the message of love....ah, not going there or Bill pops a top thinking I am hatin again...

Alas, we are faced with plenty of marriages that are not, never have, been intended to create and raise offspring. 
That is fine, this is the decision of the partners.

However we still have to deal with the legal aspects of marriage.
Things a hetero couple gets with one signature on the dotted line. 
I think it should be rewarded when 2 people are committed to each other, not punished.

There are plenty of hetero couples who violate the sensibilities of just about any moral context, yet their status is protected.
Plenty people make a farce out of the 'institution' (most recent and prominent lately the infamous Kardashian gig)


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

I guess it comes down to what's a "minority"  is what you want to have sex with make you a minority?  You could make a monority out of anyone or everyone.  Are fat people a minority?  Are red heads a minority?  What about bearded people are they a minority.  How many "victim" classes do we need in this world.  Can you llok at a gay male and say that dudes gay and be accurate?  No so why are they a minority?  If its sexual preferences then shouldn't NAMBLA members be a protected minority.  Why discriminate against bisexuals by forcing them to only be allowed to marry a male or a female why not both?


As to the wife needing to legally adopt the baby that's no different then if my wife had a baby with another man and I wanted to rasie it id have to adopt it.  Im not the father im not related to that baby at all.  So its not picking on them because they are gay it because the wife is not the birth parent no different then in regular marriages if the father is not the birth father


----------



## Steve (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so why should someone that does believe compromise for them?


In what way does restricting the legal benefits of marriage represent a compromise in your own?  I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.  It's like saying, I don't like beef, therefore no one shall eat beef.  If you're a vegan, by all means, don't eat your friends.  But I'm going to have a steak, thank you very much.  My eating steak represents in no way a compromise on your part.  



ballen0351 said:


> not at all
> 
> your correct.  Ill be honest I can't explain my resistance to it.  Your arguments are correct thoughtful and make perfect sense to me.  There is just something that bothers me about it and I don't know what it is or why.  You def won the argument but I still am on the fence on the issue and I have no logical explanation as to why.


I have no problem with this.  We all have issues that are emotional and that is perfectly legit, in my opinion.  The issue for me is when you take an acknowledged emotional issue and dress it up as reason so that you can influence others.  You are absolutely entitled to your opinions about marriage and I respect them 100%.   

I also expect that you'll vote accordingly when the time comes and I have no problem with that.  



Bob Hubbard said:


> Who is asking you to compromise? Just let others who believe differently live their own lives. You can live yours however you like.


This.  QFT.



ballen0351 said:


> But if you believe gay marriage is wrong then you are asking them to.  Telling them to shut up and mind your own business won't work.


Gay couples get married ALL THE TIME.  There are churches in which gay couples can currently get married in a religious ceremony.  What we're talking about isn't whether or not they can marry.  The argument is whether or not the government should recognize the marriage as such and confer the social, civil and financial benefits that go along with this recognition.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Now I have read the new hampshire law and as written I don't have any objections to it other then the age of consent but that didn't apply to gay marriage.  If a bill was written like that here I wouldn't be opposed to it passing.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess it comes down to what's a "minority"  is what you want to have sex with make you a minority?  You could make a monority out of anyone or everyone.  Are fat people a minority?  Are red heads a minority?  What about bearded people are they a minority.  How many "victim" classes do we need in this world.  Can you llok at a gay male and say that dudes gay and be accurate?  No so why are they a minority?  If its sexual preferences then shouldn't NAMBLA members be a protected minority.  Why discriminate against bisexuals by forcing them to only be allowed to marry a male or a female why not both?



Being obtuse again, no? Don't bring polygamy into this. That's another matter.

You are hung up on the sexuality, while making broad statements on how society passes laws they want to have in their environment. Fine if you are the majority. Not good if you are not. We are not talking about fat people. We are not talking about multiple partners. KISS: keep it simple, Silly! marriage. 2 people. We can discuss the rest later.

I let Chanuck and Tez explain to you what can happen when the majority passes laws as to how they want society to work.
Yes, that is a big hint right there.





> As to the wife needing to legally adopt the baby that's no different then if my wife had a baby with another man and I wanted to rasie it id have to adopt it.  Im not the father im not related to that baby at all.  So its not picking on them because they are gay it because the wife is not the birth parent no different then in regular marriages if the father is not the birth father



No. When your wife presents you with her labor of love while you and her are legally married, the child's birth certificate will list YOU as father, unless she decides otherwise. That means you are the legal parent. You would have to go to court to have your status altered.

remember, simple...
Married couple, the kid that pops out is the couples. You don't have to go through extra steps to become the father. The one signature on the dotted line took care of that.
(correct me if I am wrong but there is also a grace period after a divorce, any child born during that time is considered the ex-husband's child unless otherwise specified.)


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

I know I come across as wisshy washy and that's because I am.  One min steve says something that makes perfect sense to me and then the next someone says something like if your not gay its shouldn't bother you so get over it and im like well wait it does bother me.  So I don't know.  I suppose it will fall into the category of "We are the Govt and we will do what we want anyway so resistance is futile"  it will pass at somepoint regardless


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

You can't legally put down a fathers name if you know he is not the father.  If I know my wife is pregant with another mans baby she can't legally put my name on the certificate.  Now that may vary state to state I guess.  I only know because a frind of mine and his wife were having a baby.  She apparently had been cheating on him.  And he didn't know.  Well when the baby popped out its was pretty clear my fair skined blonde friend was not the father of the baby and that the babys real father was black.  When she tried to put him on the certificate he refused and then found the law and tried to have her charged.  But since she never actually put his name on it since he refused she couldn't be charged.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

My name was never on my sons birth certificate. She put 'unknown'. I had no say in it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Im not being obtuse it goes back to the original point.  Once we open the door its hard to shut it again.  That's one of my main concers.  And when you get comments like who cares if a guy wnats to marry a toaster just proves the point that people will push the envelope some purposely  



granfire said:


> Being obtuse again, no? Don't bring polygamy into this. That's another matter.
> 
> You are hung up on the sexuality, while making broad statements on how society passes laws they want to have in their environment. Fine if you are the majority. Not good if you are not. We are not talking about fat people. We are not talking about multiple partners. KISS: keep it simple, Silly! marriage. 2 people. We can discuss the rest later.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My name was never on my sons birth certificate. She put 'unknown'. I had no say in it.



Same happened to me on my first child I had before I met my wife.  I had to take her to court to get my named added


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

I think you missed my point there. 

The problem is, people who know better are out there inserting foot in mouth with even more outlandish hyperbole.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/jd-hayworth-gay-marriage_n_498973.html


> Nearly seven years ago, then-senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) was asked a rather benign question about homosexuality during an interview with _USA Today_, and offered a response that has gone down in the annals of political head-turners.   "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my  knowledge included homosexuality," Santorum said. "That's not to pick on  homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or  whatever the case may be."





> former Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth, ..."You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move  toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this --  it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy,'"  Hayworth said. "Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don't mean to be  absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an  absurd point -- I guess that would mean if you really had affection for  your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way  to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with  that federal marriage amendment that I support."




But people around the world do marry animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage

Do I think they should be able to? Not really. My line's been stated already - human, of legal age, able to make an informed decision. number and genders irrelevant.

Does animal marriage have anything to do with same sex marriage? No. None at all. Nada. Zilch. Zero.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not being obtuse it goes back to the original point.  Once we open the door its hard to shut it again.  That's one of my main concers.  And when you get comments like who cares if a guy wnats to marry a toaster just proves the point that people will push the envelope some purposely



Huh? Toaster?

No, you are mudding the waters with such arguments. 

There is no one good argument to deny a same sex couple the same rights any hetero couple receives by just signing the papers.
The 'marrying a house' or toaster, or animal, or polygamy arguments is all smoke and mirrors.

narrow margin: 2 people, one event. Stay on task! 

Explain why a gay couple should not be allowed to make the decisions in a life altering situation, like one being on life support. 
Or even as simply as being allowed to be in the hospital room with their life partner as spouse, something that is a given for a hetero couple. 

explain please.

Or pick any of the list Bob was kind enough to dig out, assuming a civil union was even allowable in any given state.

When we got this problem solved, we can tackle the polygamy thing, but by then it won't be an issue if there are only one man and several women, or more men than women. 

And lets face it. There have always been the crazies, wanting to marry their dog or what have you. And let's not forget, i think there are precedents on animal inheriting estates...

Close what door? On allowing equal rights to all people in the jurisdiction? Why would you want to do that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Mr. Sulu got married in California.
If he decided to move to Texas, under Texan State Law, he's not married. In fact, under Texan law recognizing him as married is illegal.
So should Mr. Sulu become ill, his life partner, his legally married spouse, is denied the right to be there by his side. Can't make the decisions I or you would make for our own spouse in that situation. Could be separated from any kids that may be in the relationship. Locked out of bank accounts, evicted from a home, and so forth.

Some people are ok with that.

I'm not.

That's why it's an important issue to me.  Fairness and what's right.


Edited:
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Texas


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

[
So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california?  Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.  



Bob Hubbard said:


> Mr. Sulu got married in California.
> If he decided to move to Texas, under Texan State Law, he's not married. In fact, under Texan law recognizing him as married is illegal.
> So should Mr. Sulu become ill, his life partner, his legally married spouse, is denied the right to be there by his side. Can't make the decisions I or you would make for our own spouse in that situation. Could be separated from any kids that may be in the relationship. Locked out of bank accounts, evicted from a home, and so forth.
> 
> ...


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> [
> So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california?  Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.



Any state ought to be required to acknowledge and respect the laws of any other state. Like they accept your driver's license or the marriage certificate of a hetero couple.

All men are created equal, you know.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Huh? Toaster?
> 
> No, you are mudding the waters with such arguments.


Some one a few pages back Asked why would I care if a guy wanted to marry a toaster it does not effect me so who cares



> There is no one good argument to deny a same sex couple the same rights any hetero couple receives by just signing the papers.
> The 'marrying a house' or toaster, or animal, or polygamy arguments is all smoke and mirrors.


Then way has it been voted down in 39 states?


> narrow margin: 2 people, one event. Stay on task!


and if that was all it was it would be simple.  But People will use this as a spring bored to other things.  Thats just what we do and at some point people need to say enough is enough and apparently in 39 states this is that point.



> Explain why a gay couple should not be allowed to make the decisions in a life altering situation, like one being on life support.
> Or even as simply as being allowed to be in the hospital room with their life partner as spouse, something that is a given for a hetero couple.


You should not need to be married for that and you dont need to be gay.  Shouldnt hetro couples that dont believe in marriage but have been together for years be allowed the same thing?



> explain please.
> 
> Or pick any of the list Bob was kind enough to dig out, assuming a civil union was even allowable in any given state.
> 
> ...


Why should that only be applied to marriages?  If I dont want to be married but live with my girlfriend for 20 years have kids shouldnt we have the same right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> [
> So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california?  Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.





> Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions (Texas Family Code § 6.204(c)).[SUP][4][/SUP]  The Constitutionality of refusing to recognize a lawful marriage  performed in another State remains in dispute. Generally, the Full Faith  and Credit Clause found in Article IV Section 1 would prohibit a State  from doing this, but some discretion has also been given to States in  certain matters. The Constitutional provision does give Congress the  power to, "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and  proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." (Article IV,  Section 1 of the United States Constitution).



According to the Texas State Constitution, it differs to the US Constitution as a higher law.

Also we have a right to go where we want, to live where we want. Texas and other states that legalize discrimination like this, inhibit that.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:
			
		

> [
> So now the people of texas should be required to follow the laws of the people of california?  Its simple really if you don't like the laws in texas don't move to texas.



No, the state of Texas has to acknowledge the contract made in California that is called "marriage." The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:



> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts,  records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress  may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records,  and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.



Which is why the SCOTUS won't hear the California Proposition 8 case-to rule for it is to subvert the will of the people in states that have made gay marriage legal, and to rule against it is to  make gay marriage the law of the land.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Any state ought to be required to acknowledge and respect the laws of any other state. Like they accept your driver's license or the marriage certificate of a hetero couple.
> 
> All men are created equal, you know.


So when 2 states disagree what state is right?  Shouldnt that apply to all laws then.  If I can open carry a gun in Texas why cant I do it in New York?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You should not need to be married for that and you dont need to be gay.  Shouldnt hetro couples that dont believe in marriage but have been together for years be allowed the same thing?
> 
> explain please.



a man and woman can claim to be married. No one questions it.
Same sex couple are either denied or questioned.  While you're home rooting around for your 'license', your partner is dying in the hospital.
Fair? Right? Proper?

Not to me.

In some states all you need to be married is to claim it. No ceremony, no permit, no paperwork. It's called 'common-law'.
I don't live in a state that recognizes 'common-law' marriage. 
http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So when 2 states disagree what state is right?  Shouldnt that apply to all laws then.  If I can open carry a gun in Texas why cant I do it in New York?



Amendment 10 of the US Constitution.

Gun carry laws are left to the States to decide. Large body of case-study in that argument. It's referenced in one or more of the 2nd Amendment arguments.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

elder999 said:


> No, the state of Texas has to acknowledge the contract made in California that is called "marriage." The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:



So my legal gun permit license in Texas should be good in New York and my medical Marijuana card in California should be good in Ohio.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Soooo...
> 
> Bob, allice, ted, steve, jill, kathy and dave are all married...to each other. They have in their marriage bobby, allice, teddy, frank, grace, stevey, lionel, jane as minor children.
> 
> ...



Credit where due, I think this reasoning against polygamy actually has some merit. A marriage involving 5 individuals, each being married to all the others, would be a nightmare to any probate or divorce judge. I can just imagine the hilarity ensuing when three of the individuals don't write a will, two of them will their possession to each other, and then some poor judge has to figure out parental authority when someone in this happy family divorces. 

That being said, and so long as we're playing the wonderful game of "what-if", it's possible to develop probate, adoption, and inhereitance laws to accomodate multiple-partner marriage setups. Difficult certainly, game-changing without a doubt, but nonetheless possible. 

Oh, and sorry for the late response.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Amendment 10 of the US Constitution.
> 
> Gun carry laws are left to the States to decide. .



As are marriage laws.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> but nonetheless possible.
> 
> .


really? because we cant even agree as a nation on laws for two people yet.  I couldnt imagine that


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:
			
		

> As are marriage laws.



Yes, but if my wife and I were to move to any other state in the country, that state would be legally required to recognize that we're married.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Some one a few pages back Asked why would I care if a guy wanted to marry a toaster it does not effect me so who cares


Valid point tho: does it affect you if a guy marries his toaster?
Answer honestly! Assuming it si not your toaster he fell in love with.



> Then way has it been voted down in 39 states?


Tyranny of the masses. It's good to be a small part of a larger whole.



> and if that was all it was it would be simple.  But People will use this as a spring bored to other things.  Thats just what we do and at some point people need to say enough is enough and apparently in 39 states this is that point.


It IS that simple. 2 people one event. 
everything else is thrown in to murk up the issue (successfully) like it was back in the early 90s about gays in the armed forces, cross dressers, transsexuals and pedophiles and rapists thrown in for good measure to make a point why gays are unfit to serve the country and die for it. 




> You should not need to be married for that and you dont need to be gay.  Shouldnt hetro couples that dont believe in marriage but have been together for years be allowed the same thing?


true, you should not, but you have to.
And in a good amount of states there is the common law marriage, as Bob noted, plus when a couple like that splits judges often enough recognize the union to be like marriage and award benefits accordingly. 




> Why should that only be applied to marriages?  If I dont want to be married but live with my girlfriend for 20 years have kids shouldnt we have the same right?



again, see above.
hetero couples do enjoy benefits even without the signed paper.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Valid point tho: does it affect you if a guy marries his toaster?
> Answer honestly! Assuming it si not your toaster he fell in love with.


does it affect me directly no but does it effect society if we decide its ok?  I dont know




> Tyranny of the masses. It's good to be a small part of a larger whole.


and you would be ok with it if the 39 states agreed with you. but since they dont its Tryanny




> It IS that simple. 2 people one event.
> everything else is thrown in to murk up the issue (successfully) like it was back in the early 90s about gays in the armed forces, cross dressers, transsexuals and pedophiles and rapists thrown in for good measure to make a point why gays are unfit to serve the country and die for it.


because it happens.  People purposly push the issue to make a point to ty and get a payoff.  See the other post I had about the gay guy in my police academy class that had no desire to be a cop he just wanted to be kicked out so he can sue. I could easily see someone sue for discrimination because he cant marry his goat, toaster, sister, mother, insert anything here.  So you do need to look at the bigger picture.  It effects it all.  





> true, you should not, but you have to.


so if the real fight was about equality then they should be what we are working to change.  


> And in a good amount of states there is the common law marriage, as Bob noted, plus when a couple like that splits judges often enough recognize the union to be like marriage and award benefits accordingly.


"Like a marriage" not a marriage each state sees common law differently so again its up to the state to decide






> again, see above.
> hetero couples do enjoy benefits even without the signed paper.



not in all states and not all benefits so why single them out?  Or are none married hetero couples not "victim" enough for the debate?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Yes, but if my wife and I were to move to any other state in the country, that state would be legally required to recognize that we're married.



Only because that state recognizes marriages.  If a state was to git rid of marriage all together they wouldnt.  As I was reading up on new Hapmshire I saw some of the libertarians in the state "congress" (I dont know what they call it up there) had discussed getting rid of marriage all together and going to a strict civil unions for all and converting all marriages in that state to a civil union.  Could they convert your marriage to a civil union?  I dont know


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Only because that state recognizes marriages.  If a state was to git rid of marriage all together they wouldnt.  As I was reading up on new Hapmshire I saw some of the libertarians in the state "congress" (I dont know what they call it up there) had discussed getting rid of marriage all together and going to a strict civil unions for all and converting all marriages in that state to a civil union.  Could they convert your marriage to a civil union?  I dont know



Article 4 - Section 1.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> does it affect me directly no but does it effect society if we decide its ok?  I dont know
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Stick with the topic.
A gay is not a cross dresser is not a transsexual is not a pedophile is not a rapist. 

Intersections might exist, but not necessarily. So throwing all of that in the discussion is not contributing to an honest discussion. 

So, a handful of people marry toasters. Does that affect society. past injuries possibly inflicted upon marritial activities, I dare say no.


but again, you chose to not read argument you don't like. As Bob puts it, as hetero you don't have to prove marriage, you often don't even have to go through the motions. It is a given.

As to tyranny of the masses, that's the nature of the beast.
That's why the founding fathers put in provisions to limit the masses from imposing their believes upon the population who does not share their thoughts.

Again, while you bring in broad argument, as in society forms the laws it wants to live under, you fail to see the implications your broad statement has. As before, I say it again: ask Chanuck and Tez about what can happen when the checks and balances fail to protect the minority. 

You like to point at the grand old paper that is the Constitution when it suits you (as in Free speech, regardless of content) but you forget one little bit as convinient: All men are created equal. 
And even that statement has undergone an undocumented amendment, since then it was all white males...not women (chattel) or men (people) of other color. 

All men - Humans - are created equal, they should enjoy equal rights under the law. That ought to include the right to marry the _person _of their choosing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Gay men are not equal under the law.  They are protected class.  If a guy walks up and hits me in the face its an assault.  If he walks up says your a (insert gay slur) and hits me its a hate cries with a tougher penality.  So they are not equal.  So if you can have special laws for them regarding assaults then why not special laws for them regarding civil unions.  We already treat them differently


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm in a protected class. So it would be OK to stop me from marrying?


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Gay men are not equal under the law.  They are protected class.  If a guy walks up and hits me in the face its an assault.  If he walks up says your a (insert gay slur) and hits me its a hate cries with a tougher penality.  So they are not equal.  So if you can have special laws for them regarding assaults then why not special laws for them regarding civil unions.  We already treat them differently



......

and you expect this argument to be taken seriously?

So they get a special set of 'protection' which does not keep them from being assaulted, just possibly puts the assailant away fro a longer time....and you use that as argument to deny them a set of privileges they would have if they were not gay.

it takes Archy Bunker to find that logical....

Oh, the assault on a person with hate motivated attacks caused such laws to spring into action. Since prior to that a hate motivated attack hardly warranted more than a slap on the wrist. Unequal starting point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Gay men are not equal under the law.  They are protected class.  If a guy walks up and hits me in the face its an assault.  If he walks up says your a (insert gay slur) and hits me its a hate cries with a tougher penality.  So they are not equal.  So if you can have special laws for them regarding assaults then why not special laws for them regarding civil unions.  We already treat them differently



My argument is to -not- treat anyone differently.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I'm in a protected class. So it would be OK to stop me from marrying?



More like acquiring home owners insurance, denying coverage in the event of a claim on previously acquired policies....

Or getting married....but yeah, that's the general drift


(just to make sure, I am referring to a specific historical event)


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Article 4 - Section 1.



Full faith and credit has never been applied to marriage laws.  In the 60sway when some states outlawed inner racial marriages it was brough up and was struck diwn inthe courts.  The only way it works is if congress passes a law specifically recognize the law.  For example up until a few years ago protective orders were not enforcable across state lines until congress passed the domestice violence law I forget the name now protective orders issued in texas are enforcable in new york.  Before they were not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I'm in a protected class. So it would be OK to stop me from marrying?



Your in canada you can do what you want there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My argument is to -not- treat anyone differently.



But we do its just the way things are


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

[
I have no idea what your talking about




granfire said:


> More like acquiring home owners insurance, denying coverage in the event of a claim on previously acquired policies....
> 
> Or getting married....but yeah, that's the general drift
> 
> ...


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Your in canada you can do what you want there.



Stop being obtuse, you're better than that.

By your logic, it would be OK to not allow minorities to marry because they are also in a protected class.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Stop being obtuse, you're better than that.
> 
> By your logic, it would be OK to not allow minorities to marry because they are also in a protected class.


depends on the minority.  If your question is should gays be denied a right to be married I say it should be left for the people to decide.  I would vote yes to new hampshires law but I would not force other states to do the same.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> [
> I have no idea what your talking about



I know you are not getting it.
On many levels.

11-9-1938


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> I know you are not getting it.
> On many levels.
> 
> 11-9-1938



That has nothing to do with marriage laws


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> That has nothing to do with marriage laws



no.

it has everything to do with society passing the laws under which they want to live. 

Now, you want to uphold that statement?

And now we are making the journey back from racism to marriage law:

According to your reasoning, because the people did not vote it off the books, inter racial marriage ought still be illegal in the great state of Alabama. 


here is the thing: 
just because unequal treatment does exist, it is not an excuse to perpetuate it or - even worse - cement it into law.

Along your lines of thinking it would be a-ok to throw gays into jail. After all at one time the people thought it was the way to go.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> no.
> 
> it has everything to do with society passing the laws under which they want to live.


Now, you want to uphold that statement?

Every law we have was passed by society from no driving while texting to murder.


> And now we are making the journey back from racism to marriage law:[/qoute]
> So now im a racist ok I see where this is going.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

The Texas GOP would like to make it illegal to be gay. 
It's in their party platform. 
As it revoking marital status legally gained elsewhere, forbidding gays from having kids, and even forbid them insurance and other benefits.
http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-go...-of-homosexuals-and-supportive-heterosexuals/
The 2010 platform from the Republican Party of Texas can be found here.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 9, 2012)

If you don't want people to be in a special class, then we must stop treating them differently.  For example, if you do not like that a criminal gets extra time for hittting a gay man in the face then we must create a society where a man does not get hit in the face JUST for being gay.  We must stop treating people as if they have less rights that the rest of us, if they are a bit different than main stream.  Look at it this way, changing the law does not give gays special rights, it gives them the same rights as the rest of us.  No less or any more rights than the rest of us.  Now gays are a protected class of people because we treat them as different than normal human beings and they need protection from people who take that thought process to the extremes.  Most of us probably know people that think it is okay to not hire, deny services, or even assault  people that are gay.  

Would it make sense to keep a law that disabled people couldn't marry?  What about people of different religions?  Different races?  People with mental issues, such as depression?  All these things have been reasons people cannot marry and now we view such opinions as archaic and ignorant.  Why is gay the defining line?  Is it because gays marrying would be detrimental for society?  That isn't supported by anything other than religious right opinion. There is no actual factual support for that claim. Would it be a nightmare for governmental beuracracy?  No.  Actually easier than civil unions AND marriage.  Bad for the economy?  No. Same money gets spent, if not more money if gay marriages are legal.  The slippery slope arguement?  That is fear mongering.  No one can enter into a valid contract without informed consent.  Marriage for government purposes just that, a contract.  That means toasters and dolphins are out.  The biggest and truest impediment to gay marriage is bigotry.  Plain and not so simple. The arguement becomes a lot clearer when viewed in that light.  Do we allow citizens in this country to be treated differently, given less rights, due to nothing more than an ingrained prejudice?  For me that answer is simple and why I am stubborn on this issue.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

That's the beauty of this country if you don't like the rules in one state you can move.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> That's the beauty of this country if you don't like the rules in one state you can move.



Except when bigoted rednecks seek to extend their narrow view to the entire nation via Amendments.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Except when bigoted rednecks seek to extend their narrow view to the entire nation via Amendments.



Yes everyone that is against Gay marriage is a bigoted Redneck.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes everyone that is against Gay marriage is a bigoted Redneck.



In my opinion, probably.  But I'm basing that call on the Texas GOP's platform, as well as comments by Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Pallen.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)

gays getting married got nothing to do with Peta and the whale.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Blade96 said:


> gays getting married got nothing to do with Peta and the whale.


thanks for stoping by


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)

hey bud....Billie's little pet


----------



## elder999 (Feb 10, 2012)

There's something I usually say at weddings-at least, when I'm officiating-and it's this:



> iI don't marry you. The state doesn't marry you.The "church" doesn't marry you.God-though we'll ask for His blessing-doesn't marry you. Marriage is a covenant.
> 
> You marry *each other.*



With that said, it's worth pointing out  that over the years my father refused to marry quite a few couples, for various reasons. This is pretty much a minister's perogative-and a church's. Someone probably will get around to trying to sue a church for refusing to marry two men or two women.

They will lose, as there are any number of people and places that would be happy to marry them.

In our society, there are usually two marriages: 

the one where the priest/minister/priestess/shaman/witch-doctor/heirophant/clown/witch/Elvis performs a ceremony blessing the union.

And the one where the state legally recognizes said union, and confers all the legal rights and privileges that ensue from such.

Often, this second one can be performed at the same time-after the "I dos" the officiant and the happy couple make it legal by signing and certifying the marriage license with a couple of witnesses-later, the marriage license gets filed with the state. Along the way, the "bride" can take her "husband's" name, if they so desire. 

In any case, marriage is a covenant-they marry each other. A wall can't say "I do," and neither can a dog, a child, a sheep or a whale-though the case for cetacean sentience is another thing altogether. Cetaceans are promiscuous, anyway-the very idea of "marriage" probably would make them laugh.

Oh, here's a Republican representative talking about gay marriage before the vote in Washington:


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 10, 2012)

I was VERY proud of Maureen Walsh for her statements. Man, I love Washington!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

it was a nice speech. I have to ask though...when you vote for these people to be your representatives in the processes fo governing your country should they be voting for laws, statutes etc in the way they think they should or the way that the people elected them think they should? Have you elected them so they can follow what they want or have you elected them to say and vote for what you want?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> it was a nice speech. I have to ask though...when you vote for these people to be your representatives in the processes fo governing your country should they be voting for laws, statutes etc in the way they think they should or the way that the people elected them think they should? Have you elected them so they can follow what they want or have you elected them to say and vote for what you want?



Both, actually.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Both, actually.




So what do you do when you elect someone on the basis they tick all the boxes you agree with then they decide after 'much prayer and thought' of course that actually they go against what you believed they were for. How much are they public servants and how much are they in it for themselves to push their own agenda? If you for example voted for a candidate on the basis of their stand on abortion, which ever view and found that when it came to a vote they said they had to vote as they thought fit and voted the opposite of what you wished when you voted them?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So what do you do when you elect someone on the basis they tick all the boxes you agree with then they decide after 'much prayer and thought' of course that actually they go against what you believed they were for. How much are they public servants and how much are they in it for themselves to push their own agenda? If you for example voted for a candidate on the basis of their stand on abortion, which ever view and found that when it came to a vote they said they had to vote as they thought fit and voted the opposite of what you wished when you voted them?


it happens nothing much you can do except wait for next election and try to have him beat in the primary.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So what do you do when you elect someone on the basis they tick all the boxes you agree with then they decide after 'much prayer and thought' of course that actually they go against what you believed they were for. How much are they public servants and how much are they in it for themselves to push their own agenda? If you for example voted for a candidate on the basis of their stand on abortion, which ever view and found that when it came to a vote they said they had to vote as they thought fit and voted the opposite of what you wished when you voted them?



When they stop representing you, you vote them out, or try to in the next election.  

A local state senator was one of a handful of swing votes in NY's gay marriage debate.  He 'switched sides' as it were and helped pass the bill.  Many felt betrayed. Some said he'd destroyed his career.  He gained my support by having the courage to make what is often a hard and unpopular decision.



> "I just probably committed political suicide," Grisanti told a reporter  for The Buffalo News shortly after midnight as he made the westward trip  on the Thruway.





> "It was a very, very hard decision for me to figure out," he told The  News. "I know I disappointed a lot of people with that decision."





> But he also got an earful from Western New York leaders of the  Republican and Conservative parties, who warned him to stick to his  campaign pledge to oppose such marriages. African-American church  leaders also clearly told him he would lose their support if he  supported the legislation.
> Even his wife, who attend Catholic services each Sunday, indicated she would be disappointed, Grisanti said.





> After the election, Grisanti began researching the subject. He also  met with constituents on both sides. He studied the legal issues --  adoption, wills, hospital visitation rights and civil unions.
> "I have never in the past four months researched an issue or met with  so many people and groups on a single issue such as this," he said in  his speech Friday night. "I have struggled with this immensely, I can  tell you that."





> "If I take the Catholic out of me, which is hard to do, then absolutely  they should have these rights," Grisanti told The News. "It has nothing  to do with politics. It has to do with my own personal belief."


http://www.buffalonews.com/city/politics/article468372.ece


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

The trick is to piss off the voters at the start of your term.  People have short memories so by the time the next election comes they forget.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2012)

Frankly, for the most part, as long as you say the right things, your actual voting record doesn't really matter.  Sad truth is, nobody really pays attention to what politicians DO.  We pretend like we do, but for the most part, the actual record doesn't matter.  Works in reverse, too.  Where a well put together smear campaign will ruin a candidate whether or not any of it is true.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> The trick is to piss off the voters at the start of your term. People have short memories so by the time the next election comes they forget.



What would happen here is people would really piss their MP off back, every week at their constituency surgeries there'd be people waiting to see them with every complaint under the sun, and giving their MP their opinions. It's bad enough as it is for them, here our MP, William Hague the Foreign Secretary gets farmers in, complete with country smells and sheep dogs waiting to give him the benefit of their wisdom, 'Nah then lad, thou hast na idea hast thee'. Then there's the Tory matrons, all twin sets, pearls and Hunter wellies, of course the hoi polloi follows on, ah poor man lol.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What would happen here is people would really piss their MP off back, every week at their constituency surgeries there'd be people waiting to see them with every complaint under the sun, and giving their MP their opinions. It's bad enough as it is for them, here our MP, William Hague the Foreign Secretary gets farmers in, complete with country smells and sheep dogs waiting to give him the benefit of their wisdom, 'Nah then lad, thou hast na idea hast thee'. Then there's the Tory matrons, all twin sets, pearls and Hunter wellies, of course the hoi polloi follows on, ah poor man lol.


I ran this post through google translate and still couldn't figure it out. 

"It's bad enough as it is for them, here our MP, William Hague the Foreign Secretary gets farmers in, complete with country smells and sheep dogs waiting to give him the benefit of their wisdom, 'Nah then lad, thou hast na idea hast thee'. Then there's the Tory matrons, all twin sets, pearls and Hunter wellies, of course the hoi polloi follows on, ah poor man lol."  

I think I understood some words... but when you put them together like this it hurts my brain!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

Steve said:


> I ran this post through google translate and still couldn't figure it out.
> 
> "It's bad enough as it is for them, here our MP, William Hague the Foreign Secretary gets farmers in, complete with country smells and sheep dogs waiting to give him the benefit of their wisdom, 'Nah then lad, thou hast na idea hast thee'. Then there's the Tory matrons, all twin sets, pearls and Hunter wellies, of course the hoi polloi follows on, ah poor man lol."
> 
> I think I understood some words... but when you put them together like this it hurts my brain!







  Yorkshire farmer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0lz0PIsDo&feature=related Tory lady. The stable girl is wearing Hunter wellies on her feet. Twin set is a matching jumper and cardigan worn with a tweed skirt often a headscarf too, tied with the special aristocratic knot. 







Border collie = sheep dog, more intelligent than politicians.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

I think the accessability of politicians varys alot here.  My federal congressman is almost impossible to meet with.  He's always busy or in a meeting.  My local state senator on the other hand lives 4 houses down from me so I could see her anytime if I wanted but I would never bother her at her house


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So what do you do when you elect someone on the basis they tick all the boxes you agree with then they decide after 'much prayer and thought' of course that actually they go against what you believed they were for. How much are they public servants and how much are they in it for themselves to push their own agenda? If you for example voted for a candidate on the basis of their stand on abortion, which ever view and found that when it came to a vote they said they had to vote as they thought fit and voted the opposite of what you wished when you voted them?



The counterbalance is that if they do this too much or on issues the electorate disagrees enough on, that representative faces problems with reelection.


----------



## granfire (Feb 10, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> The counterbalance is that if they do this too much or on issues the electorate disagrees enough on, that representative faces problems with reelection.



But the bad part is, until the elections come around again, you are stuck with the donkey.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 11, 2012)

If we let Gay people get married, will we have to stop calling them "Gay" and Start calling them "Miserable"?  

ya know, cuz Gay means happy, and married people supposedly aren't... and I'll just shut up now.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> If we let Gay people get married, will we have to stop calling them "Gay" and Start calling them "Miserable"?
> 
> ya know, cuz Gay means happy, and married people supposedly aren't... and I'll just shut up now.




I have a colleague who says 'my wife tells people we are happily married, aye, she's happy and I'm married'.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I have a colleague who says 'my wife tells people we are happily married, aye, she's happy and I'm married'.



You.....:lfao:....owe......:lfao: :lfao:.......me......:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:.........a new keyboard. :lfao:


----------

