Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[Bob Hubbard]

Kane, you didn't answer my questions, but skirted around them like a polititian.
Do you have an answer to the specifics?

I don't want to see my taxes going for this battle. I would rather see my courts dealing with issues like murderers, rapists etc, not refighting the last thousand years worth of rights for couples. But, I sincerely hope that any state that does so has it's courts so backed up with civil rights cases and it's coffers bled dry from the costs of trying to justify an outdated and seperatist policy.

 

[Ray]

"The Homosexual Union Issue??"

Oh, my gosh, they've unionized? Now I'll never be able to afford a decent interior decorator.

<<Sorry, I couldn't help it.>>

 

[Mark L]

I wanted to clear up a few points to which I didn't respond during last evening repartee, addressing these issues:

michaeledward was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
michaeledward was raised in Agawam, Massachusetts.
michaeledward is a graduate of Agawam High School and Westfield State College in Massachusetts.
michaeledward worked in Massachusetts, and paid taxes in Massachusetts from 1980 through 1997.
michaeledward voted in Massachusetts throughout the 80's and 90's, until he moved to New Hampshire to marry is wonderful wife.

The fact that you spent many years as a resident and voter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts means nothing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and it seems you are quite well informed. However, the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of this state are accountable to the people who live here and fund our government via our taxes, and only to us. Unless you count yourself as a resident, or are otherwise contributing to the funding of the state government, you have no standing. You don't have a dog in this fight. I am a resident now, the fact that I have been for my entire life has no bearing, only that I am now. I have standing.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has not legislated from the bench.

You can say whatever you want, in whatever typeface, font size, bold and italicize it, but it doesn't make it true. It is your opinion, and to me it is irrelevant (see the previous paragraph).

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator's note:

Gentlemen there have already been some moderator warnings on this thread.

Review the sniping policy, step back and catch your breath and consider taking personal, one-on-one matters to PMs so that this thread may be productive.

 

[michaeledward]

I wanted to clear up a few points to which I didn't respond during last evening repartee, addressing these issues:
The fact that you spent many years as a resident and voter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts means nothing. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and it seems you are quite well informed. However, the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of this state are accountable to the people who live here and fund our government via our taxes, and only to us. Unless you count yourself as a resident, or are otherwise contributing to the funding of the state government, you have no standing. You don't have a dog in this fight. I am a resident now, the fact that I have been for my entire life has no bearing, only that I am now. I have standing.

michaeledward has no standing in Massachusetts, as his bio indicates NH as his location.

If you want to argue about standing, I would point out that this forum is not a legal setting. All are welcome (as I understand it) to voice opinions.

My concern toward this issue is that I have family members that are gay.

 

[Kane]

Kane, you didn't answer my questions, but skirted around them like a polititian.
Do you have an answer to the specifics?

I don't want to see my taxes going for this battle. I would rather see my courts dealing with issues like murderers, rapists etc, not refighting the last thousand years worth of rights for couples. But, I sincerely hope that any state that does so has it's courts so backed up with civil rights cases and it's coffers bled dry from the costs of trying to justify an outdated and seperatist policy.

No matter how you want to solve this issue it will take tax money;

1. It will take tax money to make homosexual "marriage" legal.

2. It will take tax money to take the word "marriage" out of government programs.

3. It would take tax money to set up a new institution for homosexual unions called a different name but equal (ie Garriage, Homunion, ect.)

4. It will take tax money to ban homosexual "marriage" via constitutional amendment.

If you believe we should pay no tax money for such issues why was it one of your political platforms for the 2004 election ? If you care only about tax money only going to murderers and rapists instead of solving civil rights dilemmas, why bother to take a stance on the issue at all?

Judging by your replies you would be willing to pay only if we solved this issue using option 1. Someone of opposite view point would only be willing to pay for option 4.

So what is your point? No one wants to pay tax money for something they don't support.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Let me put it this way...
I see expanding the coverage to be less expensive, more inclusive, and the correct thing to do. As I will possibly be running for real in 2008, it will be a major part of my platform. The constitution should be about protecting and expanding rights, not restricting them due to outdated beliefs or the "morals" of a particular religion. One of my faiths for example have been blessing same-sex relationships for years. For examples of how to do this as painlessly as possible, I look at the Canadian solution as a good starting point. Allow it on the government level, let religion handle it seperately.

 

[Shu2jack]

Out of curosity, how does getting married work? I know you need a marriage liscense, but what more do you need? Do you require a judge or priest to "marry" you or if you just sign the contract you are "married"?

If getting married works how I think it works, why not just allow homo and hetro sexuals to get and sign a marriage liscense while leaving it up to each individual church as to whether or not they will hold a religious ceremony for ANY couple?

To me this would allow all couples the opportunity to get married, equal benefits, and allow churches to retain their beliefs on gay marriage. While I am for gay marriage, I don't like the idea of government telling churches what to believe and regardless of what any person thinks, homosexuals would be legally married with all benefits.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Out of curosity, how does getting married work? I know you need a marriage liscense, but what more do you need? Do you require a judge or priest to "marry" you or if you just sign the contract you are "married"?

If getting married works how I think it works, why not just allow homo and hetro sexuals to get and sign a marriage liscense while leaving it up to each individual church as to whether or not they will hold a religious ceremony for ANY couple?

To me this would allow all couples the opportunity to get married, equal benefits, and allow churches to retain their beliefs on gay marriage. While I am for gay marriage, I don't like the idea of government telling churches what to believe and regardless of what any person thinks, homosexuals would be legally married with all benefits.

Thats pretty much it.

You get a licence, then either do a simple civil ceremony, or the big church bash. I believe the priest must have a permit from the locality to officiate.

You and I are in agreement on the other 2 sections of your post. :asian:

 

[Kane]

Let me put it this way...
I see expanding the coverage to be less expensive, more inclusive, and the correct thing to do. As I will possibly be running for real in 2008, it will be a major part of my platform. The constitution should be about protecting and expanding rights, not restricting them due to outdated beliefs or the "morals" of a particular religion. One of my faiths for example have been blessing same-sex relationships for years. For examples of how to do this as painlessly as possible, I look at the Canadian solution as a good starting point. Allow it on the government level, let religion handle it seperately.

Yes I agree that the constitution should protect and expand people's rights. My solution does this the most .

So what part would you run for if you were to run 2008?

 

[Cujo]

No matter what the argument, or what your stance, you can never legislate belief. No matter what the law, somebody will be unhappy! Any time you make a law, you impose a restriction on someone else. What you beleive is right, someone else will believe is wrong. In the end we all lose a little.

Pax
Cujo

 

[michaeledward]

No matter what the argument, or what your stance, you can never legislate belief. No matter what the law, somebody will be unhappy! Any time you make a law, you impose a restriction on someone else. What you beleive is right, someone else will believe is wrong. In the end we all lose a little.

Pax
Cujo

There is much truth in this statement. I am wondering, however, what 'restriction' is imposed on others by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

 

[Cujo]

The only restriction imposed is that there are others that will feel that this freedom is against their beliefs and therefore, they will be offended by this freedom.

Pax
Cujo

 

[michaeledward]

Does their being 'offended' create any 'restriction'?

Is one so offended, prohibited from any action?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Kane,
President. No real chance to win (that whole cash poor and integrity rich thing), but I can make alot o noise.

Michael,
Wouldn't you say that if the ultra-offended don't like giving true equality, that they could just, say, move? WOuldn't that be ironic? After years of forcing others to uproot, move, and hide, that the shoe might someday, be on their feet?

 

[michaeledward]

Michael,
Wouldn't you say that if the ultra-offended don't like giving true equality, that they could just, say, move? WOuldn't that be ironic? After years of forcing others to uproot, move, and hide, that the shoe might someday, be on their feet?

That was certainly the position that President Reagan took. Citizens could vote with their feet. In fact, that was the position candidate Bush took in 1999 and 2000.

However, and despite the DOMA act, there is a section of the Constitution that guarantees (if I recall) Full Faith and Credit. As I understand it, what one state says is legal, all states must accept. This is a big sticky-wicket in the 'States Rights' argument among conservatives.

I have two thoughts on this (maybe more) ...

first, the whole gay marriage fight is a carnival barker, distracting us from what is really going on in the country. As the pulpits around the country are winding up the masses over gay marriage, Industry is taking control of the Republic and transforming into a Fascist state.

second, those faithful that truly feel that same-sex marriage is wrong, will do as one of the great teachers in history had done ... pick-up a stick and draw on the ground... they will recognize that it is not correct in their God's eyes, but the final judgement is not theirs to make.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I agree the homosexual marriage issue is a distraction from more pressing needs. Whether it is an intentional political manipulation on behalf of the government to move our attention elsewhere is hard to say. I would suspect politicians are pandering to their constituents more than anything.

But it is a distraction still, and reflective of the "Chicken Little" mentality I've mentioned elsewhere on MartialTalk. As a people we tend to look for imaginary disasters in the offing and misplaced causes for ills.

To some...indeed to a great many...homosexual marriage will cause our nation to slide into the horrors of bestiality and pedophilia. Video games will turn our children into soul-less killers. Erotica is--even now--driving our men out of control and inducing them to rape. Marijuana is THE gateway drug.

All of these absurd allegations can be found on both conservative and liberal web sites, and the data supporting the claims is weak...if not non-existent.

And this silliness goes on in spite of public issues that stand out and in need of address.

In time the issue of homosexual marriage will be a moot point, and we will have Gays married in a number of states, if not nation-wide. If we live long enough, we will see that these fears were unfounded. The rate of homosexual behavior will more than likely stay stable at about 4% of the general population.

But Chicken Little doesn't die easily...and we will find something else to wring our hands over, and for which to tear out our hair.

Regards,


Steve

 

[sgtmac_46]

There is much truth in this statement. I am wondering, however, what 'restriction' is imposed on others by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Probably the same restrictions the ACLU applies to being offended at crosses built at World War I memorials....that being that being offended is equal to being injured. Can't have it both ways, either everyone has the right to NOT be offended, or no one has that right.

Personally, I think homosexual marriage should be legal AND World War I memorial crosses should be left where they have been for 70 years, even IF that land suddenly became government land. I think the offended be damned in either case.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That was certainly the position that President Reagan took. Citizens could vote with their feet. In fact, that was the position candidate Bush took in 1999 and 2000.

However, and despite the DOMA act, there is a section of the Constitution that guarantees (if I recall) Full Faith and Credit. As I understand it, what one state says is legal, all states must accept. This is a big sticky-wicket in the 'States Rights' argument among conservatives.

I have two thoughts on this (maybe more) ...

first, the whole gay marriage fight is a carnival barker, distracting us from what is really going on in the country. As the pulpits around the country are winding up the masses over gay marriage, Industry is taking control of the Republic and transforming into a Fascist state.

second, those faithful that truly feel that same-sex marriage is wrong, will do as one of the great teachers in history had done ... pick-up a stick and draw on the ground... they will recognize that it is not correct in their God's eyes, but the final judgement is not theirs to make.

Yes, it's a huge conspiracy...lol :erg: (Kind of like the pro-gay marriage issue is a huge conspiracy to shore up political support among certain core constituents...conspiracy theories cut both ways).

Can't simply ever accept the fact that someone could legitimately disagree with you, and it not be a conspiracy? The fact is that many people legitimately believe in a god that condemns homosexuality as evil. What's more, they legitimately believe that god destroys nations for what he perceives as 'wickedness'. Do I believe that? No, and it doesn't matter, because millions of Americans do.

Now, you can condemn them as being superstitious, but that's not the same things as some organized conspiracy to spread 'fascist industry'. It's just a way of dismissing the whole issue, without dealing with it for what it is.

 

[Marginal]

Can't simply ever accept the fact that someone could legitimately disagree with you, and it not be a conspiracy? The fact is that many people legitimately believe in a god that condemns homosexuality as evil. What's more, they legitimately believe that god destroys nations for what he perceives as 'wickedness'. Do I believe that? No, and it doesn't matter, because millions of Americans do.

That smacks of relativism.