California Ghey Marriage

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

Shouldn't polygamy be legal then?

What about pedophilism?

Why legislate morality at all?

Have their "rights" actually been hindered without the "certificate" of marriage?

Personally, I can't understand why they would want the extra tax burden unless they solely want to subvert the religious beliefs in marriage in the first place.

It's a semantic argument which has dire legal consequences. It'll be overturned just for the way the prop. was written. My apologies to Jamo.

Polygamy is not between two consenting adults, neither is pedophilism. For legal issues 7 spouses on a health plan are not the same as 1 spouse on a health plan. Laws against pedophiles protect our young. Religion has is not the primary concern with either of those.

Whose morality do you legislate? You don't want mine and I don't want yours. We are better off with legislation that keeps people from harming each other, and provides penalties for when they do.

Gays who cannot get a marriage certificate are not viewed equally under the law as somebody who can. There are plenty of benefits to having a marriage certificate that have nothing to do with religion.

Somebody asked before when this topic came up a couple of years ago about why a church should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for gays in MA. Actually, they are not. Churches are private entities that are still free to have their own rules about who they will marry and who they will not. A JP, however, will issue a legal marriage certificate to any two people who meet all the legal criteria. One of my best friends was given a JP licence for one day to perform the ceremony for my wife and I. Neither of us is religious (my friend is Jewish, but he did not perform a Jewish ceremony).

So what harm does gay marriage cause?

Steve

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by VRM

Polygamy is not between two consenting adults, neither is pedophilism.

So what harm does gay marriage cause?

Steve

Wasn't there a recent federal case regarding polygamy? oh yeah, none of the women weren't consenting.

you can buy clothes and help their cause.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374001,00.html

Jerry Lee Lewis was considered a pedophile, and his "wife" was fine with it, that's consent.

Considering the legal protections of "domestic partnerships" what good does having a piece of paper which says "marriage certificate"?

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

Wasn't there a recent federal case regarding polygamy? oh yeah, none of the women weren't consenting.

you can buy clothes and help their cause.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374001,00.html

Jerry Lee Lewis was considered a pedophile, and his "wife" was fine with it, that's consent.

Considering the legal protections of "domestic partnerships" what good does having a piece of paper which says "marriage certificate"?

Wasn't "consent" under the law.

Go back and read what a "marriage certificate" provides...government, business, credit, etc.

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Wasn't "consent" under the law.

Go back and read what a "marriage certificate" provides...government, business, credit, etc.

If it isn't consent, how could they consummate their marriage given California Penal Code 286?

In looking up the differences between domestic partnership and marriage, I found this ..

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexm...orniamarry.htm

"California already grants domestic partnerships with most of the rights of marriage. "

and

http://www.examiner.com/x-358-SF-Cit...-Board-Preview

"For California state law purposes though, the Family Code requires that registered domestic partners “have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and … be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law … as are granted and imposed upon spouses.” (Cal. Fam. Code sec. "

To me.... this seems like a lot of work for a piece of paper, I can only hope despite

"For starters, you should know that federal law recognizes only marriage between a man and a woman."

the IRS will start treating them as DINKs.


I still can not find the difference between a domestic partner and a piece of paper which must make them feel justified.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

Wasn't there a recent federal case regarding polygamy? oh yeah, none of the women weren't consenting.

you can buy clothes and help their cause.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374001,00.html

Jerry Lee Lewis was considered a pedophile, and his "wife" was fine with it, that's consent.

Considering the legal protections of "domestic partnerships" what good does having a piece of paper which says "marriage certificate"?

Those polygamists were not legal. You used a double negative
(none of the women weren't consenting.), and I'm thinking it came out the way you intended (that the women were consenting). Please correct me if I am wrong. The women may have consented, but that does not change their legal status (minors - which negates any consent anyways, and polygamy - consent is irrelevant.)

If someone is not old enough then there is no consent, so it does not matter what jerry Lee Lewis' wife says.. I'm going by MA laws as I have read a bunch of those before. Jamo, feel free to correct me if I go off base (but please explain why cause I find a lot of this stuff fascinating and I like the details).

Go back and re-read Jamos mention of insurance policies and such that specifically say 'marriage'. Car rental agencies, credit cards, hospitals might not recognise a civil union as having the same rights as a marriage certificate would give.

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by VRM

Those polygamists were not legal. You used a double negative


Go back and re-read Jamos mention of insurance policies and such that specifically say 'marriage'. Car rental agencies, credit cards, hospitals might not recognise a civil union as having the same rights as a marriage certificate would give.

it was deliberate. thus the (Roll Eyes (SARCASTIC)) not all were minors.:ro lleyes::ro lleyes::ro lleyes::ro lleyes::ro lleyes:

Go back and read about protections under the law for domestic partnerships. Then they should take issue with those industries which have discriminated against them, as it is not the government.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

it was deliberate. thus the (Roll Eyes (SARCASTIC)) not all were minors.:ro lleyes::ro lleyes::ro lleyes::ro lleyes::ro lleyes:

Go back and read about protections under the law for domestic partnerships. Then they should take issue with those industries which have discriminated against them, as it is not the government.

I don't understand what you are getting at. If you were being sarcastic about them then why bother to bring it up at all as it does nothing for your argument. Polygamy is illegal for it's own reasons, and really has nothing to do with gay marriage. Why do you think it does?

Those protections are good in some cases, but there is also the emotional attachment to marriage. Why deny them that (a lot of gay people seem to be a bit more emotional than average anyway, so let 'em be happy until they find out what divorce is like)

Who does it harm, and how does it harm them if gays are allowed to marry.?

[J. T. Toad]

Originally Posted by VRM

I don't understand what you are getting at. If you were being sarcastic about them then why bother to bring it up at all as it does nothing for your argument. Polygamy is illegal for it's own reasons, and really has nothing to do with gay marriage. Why do you think it does?

Those protections are good in some cases, but there is also the emotional attachment to marriage. Why deny them that (a lot of gay people seem to be a bit more emotional than average anyway, so let 'em be happy until they find out what divorce is like)

Who does it harm, and how does it harm them if gays are allowed to marry.?

I wasn't being sarcastic about "them" I was being sarcastic to your claim that

"Polygamy is not between two consenting adults"

when that is false.

Now we'll end up in a discussion of what the definition of is is... oh wait, what consent is.

What reasons do you have to determine the difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage?

to answer your question, see my response on the historical degradation of society.

[CobraEd]

My 2 cents on this:


What we are all struggling with here is as old as humanity itself.

It is the personal struggle between what we as a race of human beings intrinsically hold as "good" and "moral" and "ethical" and "right", . . . . . balanced against "self rightousness" and "intolerance" and "lack of unconditional love for our fellow human being"

This struggle is held both at a personal level within each of us as well as at a social level among all of us collectively.

We will NEVER figure it out. It has gone on from the time the first person became self aware and will continue until we all meet our maker. Maybe we are not supposed to figure it out. Maybe the journey and the effort in itself is the value!!!!


.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by J. T. Toad

I wasn't being sarcastic about "them" I was being sarcastic to your claim that

"Polygamy is not between two consenting adults"

when that is false.

"Polygamy is not between two consenting adults"

Polygamy is between three or more people, consenting or otherwise, thus making my statement true.

[VRM]

I have a few legal fringe groups:
Swingers (until they charge admission)
the KKK.
Satanists

[Fred Douglass]

That's I in the PASSENGER seat!!!

Better (more revealing) shot is of me boarding the HMS Uncapsizeable (aka "The Rub-a-Dub"). Krikeys! I even got one of my nieces into the thing----unsafe at any speed. I think the old engineering formua was "freeboard=reserve bouyancy". Ar-ar-ar. The little yacht is only 4.2 feet long, but it's got unlimited headroom! It's even got a "head"* too! We use the transom when overnighting......

*naughty-cal for "terlit"

PS Recognize the yellow Cobra? It won the Run and Gun, 'way back when. Owner's initials were** RL. Who dat, cobra history buffs? First correct answer gets a ride in the Rub-a-Dub! (Even if we have toshanghai you!)

*car is now "recycled" having gone slightly off-course in NH Speedway.

[392cobra]

That would be Rick Long.

With you losing 60 lbs. I think both of us MIGHT fit.I'd be willing to give it a try only if I can pee over the side.

There is nothing more liberating than peeing over the side of a sailboat in gale foorce winds.

[Fred Douglass]

Didja ever see that two-panel cartoon by the "Far Side" creator Gary Larson (?) re the "master and his dog"? It shows the "master" berating his dog, Trixie for grousing in the garbage: "Trixie! How many times do I have to tell you not to go in the garbage?!, etc., etc., etc." The next panel shows what the dog hears: "Trixie! blah-blah-blah-blah, etc., etc." It's really something you have to see and read.....

Nonetheless, I can rarely finish reading yer posts, because of Boobs Bonelli in your avatar!
Ar-ar-ar!

[imagine2frolic]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

That would be Rick Long.

With you losing 60 lbs. I think both of us MIGHT fit.I'd be willing to give it a try only if I can pee over the side.

There is nothing more liberating than peeing over the side of a sailboat in gale foorce winds.

Would that windward, or leeward,....pronounced looward?????????