cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
rjquillin wrote:Your citation has perfectly supported my case, same-sex "marriage" is not at racial. Those Virgina laws were politically motivated, and overturned by this decision.



Would you go so far as to say that resistance to gay marriage is religiously motivated?

If so, do you find that less compelling a reason to overturn laws than political motivations?

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:Indeed! But they are States and they do have that right. Fortunately, we also have the right to chose where we reside, and travel freely within the States.



Unless you're a gay legally married (civilly unioned?) couple. Then you can't move freely within the United States.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:Your citation has perfectly supported my case, same-sex "marriage" is not at racial. Those Virgina laws were politically motivated, and overturned by this decision.



So what defines a race? Skin color? That's genetics, so genetic differences? Then you have to decide if being gay is a genetic disposition or a choice. I tend to fall on the side of genetic disposition. So to me, being gay is no different than being black or asian. We're all people, separated by the completely false construct of "race". It's not like we're lions trying to mate with elephants, we can interbreed (and yes, heterosexuals can breed with homosexuals), so we're all of once "race". Like all cats are cats and all dogs are dogs, different genetically, but still dogs. So to me, prohibiting gay marriage is exactly the same as prohibiting interracial couples. This all depends on your view of "born" or "choice" though. Until there is a definitive answer for this, it's all a matter of personal opinion isn't it?

Also, I have a friend who was married on campus by a judge, to a man. Is she married or does she have a civil union? Should she not be allowed to refer to herself as married? The terms Husband and Wife have religious origins don't they? Is the man she has entered into a civil union with her husband? Is she his wife? It's all very slippery and slopey.

Personal opinion: the term Marriage has reached the Kleenex stage. It's watered down to the point that to the majority, a civil union IS a marriage. When's the last time you said "hey honey, pass me a Puffs"? Same thing to me. Call it all marriage, but exempt religious institutions from having to perform those they find objectionable.

Hell, the main priest at my wife's church refused to marry us because I'm not Catholic. The other Priest had no problem with it, but I had to promise to raise my kids Catholic. My friends had to get a special dispensation from the Pope because he had been divorced previously. There's all sorts of precedence for churches to refuse a marriage ceremony.

This Cali law is truly about the word "marriage". Not sure if the SC should turn into Meriam-Websters but if it makes this go away, I'm all for it.

DOMA is a completely different thing and needs to go away, for me that's pure civil rights.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin

Questions are easy to ask, cogent reasoned answers, much more elusive...

cmaldoon wrote:Would you go so far as to say that resistance to gay marriage is religiously motivated?

Not entirely, and for some, not at all, but a difficult question for one tending to be agnostic.
For some, I would think those with strong religious beliefs, I think there is little doubt this is the case, for others I'm not so sure. For those on the "religious right" it seems to be an affront to their teachings; I can respect that. For the other side, for some, it seems they want the word, even if they would have all the benefits but lack just the word; I'm not so sure I can afford the same level of respect here. Marriage, traditional heterosexual unions, have existed relatively unchanged for millennia. What is being discussed is a rather new form of a relationship; perhaps we need a new word as well.


If so, do you find that less compelling a reason to overturn laws than political motivations?

Laws that were enacted for political reasons and clearly suppressed have been overturned.

CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
bhodilee wrote:So what defines a race? Skin color? That's genetics, so genetic differences? Then you have to decide if being gay is a genetic disposition or a choice. I tend to fall on the side of genetic disposition. So to me, being gay is no different than being black or asian. We're all people, separated by the completely false construct of "race". It's not like we're lions trying to mate with elephants, we can interbreed (and yes, heterosexuals can breed with homosexuals), so we're all of once "race". Like all cats are cats and all dogs are dogs, different genetically, but still dogs. So to me, prohibiting gay marriage is exactly the same as prohibiting interracial couples. This all depends on your view of "born" or "choice" though. Until there is a definitive answer for this, it's all a matter of personal opinion isn't it?

Not having a succinct answer, I looked it up in wiki and the free dictionary and found there is discussion exactly what race is and varies with context. I'll fully agree with you on personal opinion however I'll differ on interracial and homosexual, as the interracial pair can reproduce naturally and the homosexual pair cannot.


Also, I have a friend who was married on campus by a judge, to a man. Is she married or does she have a civil union? Should she not be allowed to refer to herself as married? The terms Husband and Wife have religious origins don't they? Is the man she has entered into a civil union with her husband? Is she his wife? It's all very slippery and slopey.

Yup, sure is! And for this example pretty much defined by the laws of the state in which they reside.


Personal opinion: the term Marriage has reached the Kleenex stage. It's watered down to the point that to the majority, a civil union IS a marriage. When's the last time you said "hey honey, pass me a Puffs"? Same thing to me. Call it all marriage, but exempt religious institutions from having to perform those they find objectionable.

Hell, the main priest at my wife's church refused to marry us because I'm not Catholic. The other Priest had no problem with it, but I had to promise to raise my kids Catholic. My friends had to get a special dispensation from the Pope because he had been divorced previously. There's all sorts of precedence for churches to refuse a marriage ceremony.

This Cali law is truly about the word "marriage". Not sure if the SC should turn into Meriam-Websters but if it makes this go away, I'm all for it.

Living in CA it's also a matter of Prop 8 that amended the State Constitution to define the word; but yes, just the word.


DOMA is a completely different thing and needs to go away, for me that's pure civil rights.

DOMA is a bit of a hybrid, raising the question does the Federal Government have the right to define, for Federal issues, what constitutes a "marriage". I think we'll get a mixed decision on this one.

bhodilee wrote:Unless you're a gay legally married (civilly unioned?) couple. Then you can't move freely within the United States.

Help me out with this one...

CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:Not having a succinct answer, I looked it up in wiki and the free dictionary and found there is discussion exactly what race is and varies with context. I'll fully agree with you on personal opinion however I'll differ on interracial and homosexual, as the interracial pair can reproduce naturally and the homosexual pair cannot.


There are plenty of interracial heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce without the aid of a surrogate (which a homosexual couple can assuredly use) or other technique (in vitro is not natural to me). So now we're back to "are homosexuals a race". I think so yes.

Yup, sure is! And for this example pretty much defined by the laws of the state in which they reside.


I'll reprint this one second to last, but here, I'll just mention that I hate slippery slopes. And working in natural resources, I'm intimately familiar with them.

Living in CA it's also a matter of Prop 8 that amended the State Constitution to define the word; but yes, just the word.


Aside from the climate, I envy you nothing about living in CA. What a screwed up state.

DOMA is a bit of a hybrid, raising the question does the Federal Government have the right to define, for Federal issues, what constitutes a "marriage". I think we'll get a mixed decision on this one.


The part I hate about DOMA in particular is that it doesn't really apply to "marriage" but the amorphous "civil unions". which brings me to:


Yup, sure is! And for this example pretty much defined by the laws of the state in which they reside.


bhodilee wrote:Unless you're a gay legally married (civilly unioned?) couple. Then you can't move freely within the United States.


Help me out with this one...


Tackled as one: So we have a heterosexual couple wed(improper?) in civil ceremony by a judge in Nebraska. They move to Iowa five years later. Are they still afforded all the rights of marriage/civil union in Iowa that they enjoyed in Nebraska? Yes, yes they are. In fact, all 50 states recognize this and they enjoy all the rights and privileges(laugh) of marriage. These folks may move freely within the United States.

Now, a Homosexual couple gets married/unioned in Iowa where it is legal to do so and in five years decide to move to Nebraska where such a union is not allowed. Suddenly, these people find themselves not enjoying all the rights and privileges of marriage that they enjoyed in Iowa. They are, in fact, not able to move freely within the country.

This is a problem to me, and fairly significant at that. However, much like Mississippi and integration, you're probably going to need a Federal Mandate to make this a reality nationwide.

DOMA is crap, because in States where homosexual marriages/unions are allowed, they're still not extended the benefits that a heterosexual couple in the same state would receive. This is discrimination no matter how you to try to slice it. Unless you can slice it, I'd be interested in tasting that bread. This is why DOMA is a problem in my opinion. It literally creates a second class of citizen in the States in which homosexual marriage/unions are legally permitted.

Again, as a matter of policy, Gay marriages/unions should be legal nationwide. The real crux of the argument is what to call them. I'm of the mind that if my friend who got married by a JP is "married" then so are a gay couple who got unioned the same way. It's just a word, and the meanings change over time. Which is why a "f.aggot" is no longer a bundle of sticks and very few people refer to their happiness as being "gay"

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

"I'll fully agree with you on personal opinion however I'll differ on interracial and homosexual, as the interracial pair can reproduce naturally and the homosexual pair cannot."

You're using the same argument we agreed earlier was so facile?

Edit: I agree with what BowTie said in its entirety.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:This Cali law is truly about the word "marriage". Not sure if the SC should turn into Meriam-Websters but if it makes this go away, I'm all for it.

DOMA is a completely different thing and needs to go away, for me that's pure civil rights.



I find this Cali case a little annoying. I don't know why we had to go there before we even have civil unions in a lot of states. But here we are. I honestly don't don't see what the big deal is, call it this, call it that, whatever. But then...when people object to calling it marriage, I have to start thinking about it. Why do they object? We need to "defend" traditional marriage? From what?

I see no redeeming characteristics for DOMA. Either way, just look at how much things have changed in just a few years. It's a matter of when, not if.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:I find this Cali case a little annoying. I don't know why we had to go there before we even have civil unions in a lot of states. But here we are. I honestly don't don't see what the big deal is, call it this, call it that, whatever. But then...when people object to calling it marriage, I have to start thinking about it. Why do they object? We need to "defend" traditional marriage? From what?

I see no redeeming characteristics for DOMA. Either way, just look at how much things have changed in just a few years. It's a matter of when, not if.



traditional marriage, I think we can all agree that the idea of a "traditional marriage" is more a romantic notion than something that actually exists today.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

I found this telling:

Pulling out the part I find interesting:

World-Herald polling last fall showed that residents are roughly split into three camps: A third favor same-sex marriage, 22 percent favor civil unions but not marriage, and 38 percent oppose both.


So we discuss how under the law a civil union and marriage are the same thing, and perhaps legally they are. This points out though that A) the polling authors draw a clear differentiation between the two B) 55% of respondents differentiate between the two C) my hometown newspaper does not realize that 1/3 = 33% and that 33%, 22% and 38% add up to 93%.

Moral: while the same under the law, popular perception paints them differently. Can you legislate popular perception? I hope not, though I'm sure there are examples of this already.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote: Can you legislate popular perception?



Isn't that what they did in Cali?

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:Isn't that what they did in Cali?



No, because you can't call it marriage. It is however, what they're asking the Supreme Court to do. Remember, the people bringing the suit have admitted that there is no real legal differentiation between a civil union and a marriage in California. The Cali case seems to be mostly about a term. That may be simplifying, but that's the crux from what I can gather.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:No, because you can't call it marriage. It is however, what they're asking the Supreme Court to do. Remember, the people bringing the suit have admitted that there is no real legal differentiation between a civil union and a marriage in California. The Cali case seems to be mostly about a term. That may be simplifying, but that's the crux from what I can gather.



You can't call it marriage, or you must call it marriage. Whichever way it goes, it's a matter of perception. Apparently the popular perception in cali was that you can't call it marriage, isn't that what they voted on?

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
bhodilee wrote:....snip, snip... Remember, the people bringing the suit have admitted that there is no real legal differentiation between a civil union and a marriage in California. ....snip, snip....



I just did a little internet research on the difference between marriage and domestic partnership (California doesn’t have civil unions). I wanted to rely only on the most reliable sources, so I went to Glenn Beck.

OK, maybe not.

The basic story is that they are very different. Firstly, domestic partnership is purely a state construct – if people in a DP move to another state, the DP they had in California is meaningless and confers no benefits at all. DP’s are not recognized by other states, and also not recognized by the Federal government. Marriage provides benefits that DP’s do not, regarding Social Security, veteran’s benefits, estate taxes, and many other things. As far as the Feds are concerned, two people in a DP are two individuals with no legal connection whatsoever. Also, benefits provided at the state level become taxable at the Federal level – the example I found was that if a woman had health insurance for her partner, she would have to pay federal income tax on the employer’s contribution to that insurance.

Sounds like there's enough of a difference to be worth arguing about. It's not solely the use of a term that's at stake.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

Thanks coy. It's as I thought re: Ron and my conversation earlier. It seems the difference is the federal govt's recognition or lack there of. So, there's a lot at stake. Let's fight!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
kylemittskus wrote:Thanks coy. It's as I thought re: Ron and my conversation earlier. It seems the difference is the federal govt's recognition or lack there of. So, there's a lot at stake. Let's fight!



And the recognition by other states - the "free to move" part is very important. Isn't there something in the Constitution about states having to recognize the status granted by other states? I've heard that cited as a clear way for DOMA to be overturned.

As far as the Prop 8 case, I'm not 100% sure what is the best thing for The Supremes (missing Diana Ross) to do. I recognize that it is a delicate situation politically/culturally, but the saying that a justice delayed is a justice denied rings loudly in my head. But maybe that's just the drugs. Desegregation was a delicate situation politically/culturally too - sometimes what's right is what's right, no matter what some people say or how long something has been entrenched. As for DOMA, it is an abomination that should be swept into the dustbin of history.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Thanks coy. It's as I thought re: Ron and my conversation earlier. It seems the difference is the federal govt's recognition or lack there of. So, there's a lot at stake. Let's fight!

And I'll stand next to you in the fight for same-sex couples to have all the same State and Federal protections and benefits of marriage. I fall into the its-the-word group, as marriage, the heterosexual concept, preceded all existing governments and countries.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:And I'll stand next to you in the fight for same-sex couples to have all the same State and Federal protections and benefits of marriage. I fall into the its-the-word group, as marriage, the heterosexual concept, preceded all existing governments and countries.



Great! Now, how do we make that happen? Somewhere up there, you said "The Federal Government has no authority in defining what is/not "marriage"; as that is left to the States." How can the federal gov't provide the same federal protections for all, if it has no authority? If it goes state-by-state, that's not all the same state and federal protections for all. What to do?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:And I'll stand next to you in the fight for same-sex couples to have all the same State and Federal protections and benefits of marriage. I fall into the its-the-word group, as marriage, the heterosexual concept, preceded all existing governments and countries.



Oooh... now you lost me. The concept of "marriage" -- the word is obviously a made up amalgam of letters that we could date if we so wanted -- has been around longer than govts and countries? I'm not certain this is true. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain it's not. Yep. Fairly certain it is.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Oooh... now you lost me. The concept of "marriage" -- the word is obviously a made up amalgam of letters that we could date if we so wanted -- has been around longer than govts and countries? I'm not certain this is true. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain it's not. Yep. Fairly certain it is.



I don't really understand this either, but I think it's a reasonable compromise to make if it gets people the rights they deserve. Baby steps and all that.

Of course, this is not my compromise to make. The idea that a couple should need my permission to call their union whatever they want, is ludicrous.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

Here's the issue: we all agree that homosexual couples who want to deal with the negative aspects of a legal union (splitting property, sharing debt, etc.) should be allowed the same benefits of such a union. Who disagrees? No one so far. There are those who do, though. And until we hear what they're arguments are, all we can do is smile at each other.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:Great! Now, how do we make that happen? Somewhere up there, you said "The Federal Government has no authority in defining what is/not "marriage"; as that is left to the states." How can the federal gov't provide the same federal protections for all, if it has no authority? If it goes state-by-state, that's not all the same state and federal protections for all. What to do?

DOMA
It's not good, it's actually pretty bad as it stands, but we have the 'fair faith and credit' or something like that the the Federal government uses to recognize State laws and prevent one states laws from trumping another different state law. Actually seems pretty simple, but I'm sure the pols can muck it up as they did with DOMA.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:DOMA
It's not good, it's actually pretty bad as it stands, but we have the 'fair faith and credit' or something like that the the Federal government uses to recognize State laws and prevent one states laws from trumping another different state law. Actually seems pretty simple, but I'm sure the pols can muck it up as they did with DOMA.



Doesn't that end up being the same anyway, then? I get married in CA. NV and MI and TX and AL have to recognize the marriage and allow me the benefits and hold me to the downsides. The only rub is if I live in not CA, I have to have a destination wedding and it's all kosher? Certainly it isn't going to be that simple.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Oooh... now you lost me. The concept of "marriage" -- the word is obviously a made up amalgam of letters that we could date if we so wanted -- has been around longer than govts and countries? I'm not certain this is true. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain it's not. Yep. Fairly certain it is.

From Islandmix , just a google hit.

The origins of marriage
The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

or wiki

While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.

rjquillin wrote:[...] as marriage, the heterosexual concept, preceded all existing governments and countries.



Yep, pretty much before any now existing government or country.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Yep, pretty much before any now existing government or country.



Hmm. I fear this will become a pedantic debate about language constructs and cultural theory. Instead, I'll concede.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Hmm. I fear this will become a pedantic debate about language constructs and cultural theory. Instead, I'll concede.

As silly as it will seem to some, (many?), it's not the act of same-sex couples uniting, being recognized, and benefiting with all the privileges and conditions afforded married hetro couples that is contentious, I wish them well. It's how the very vocal, few I believe, have made this such an issue that they must have the word marriage. That they must have that word, with all it's history, just doesn't sit well with me, and by the looks of the crowds that have turned out, many others as well.

This has been an interesting, and civil, thread. It seems, neglecting the word itself, we're all pretty close in our thoughts. Can't say as much for some of the demonstrators. Hope I haven't lost any friends or gained enemies here.

Chem, coy, bowtie, cmaldoon, and Kyle, thanks.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Hope I haven't lost any friends or gained enemies here.



Not a chance.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Not a chance.



Speak for yourself. I broke the 20 bottles of wine I have for him.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Speak for yourself. I broke the 20 bottles of wine I have for him.

Speaking of bottles, you find anything that looks interesting for Saturday in the lot?

CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:Speak for yourself. I broke the 20 bottles of wine I have for him.



You were supposed to give them to me!

This is why I generally like this thread, we've never really gotten too aggressive with the name calling. I'm still a little miffed about some of the quitters, but whatcha gonna do?

Also, I'd have a hard time calling it anything but marriage if for no other sake than convenience. I'm not religious though so it holds no offense to me. I can understand why it irks some, but I don't care enough to get too excited. Call it marriage, make all this go away and I'm happy.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
rjquillin wrote:Speaking of bottles, you find anything that looks interesting for Saturday in the lot?



Also speaking of bottles, your three bottles of Sherry are in the car on their way to LA with me. I will be passing by Tytiger's place too late tonight to drop it off so I guess I will send it down to San Diego with my brother. When it gets there I'll Work address stuff with him/you to close the loop

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
bhodilee wrote:You were supposed to give them to me!

This is why I generally like this thread, we've never really gotten too aggressive with the name calling. I'm still a little miffed about some of the quitters, but whatcha gonna do?

Also, I'd have a hard time calling it anything but marriage if for no other sake than convenience. I'm not religious though so it holds no offense to me. I can understand why it irks some, but I don't care enough to get too excited. Call it marriage, make all this go away and I'm happy.



I too am perplexed about people who quit this thread. Posts here almost never get my hackles up (with a single Exception being during the gun-control debate when someone made a rather pointed and personal reply).

I in fact find this thread to be a most rewarding Socratic learning experience. I also altered my stance on gun control when someone posted the fact that mass murderers are only a very very very small portion of all gun related deaths I'm not from that any magazine size arguments were mostly Pointless.

Thank you all for being here and participating. I welcome those were new step on it and those who have left to return.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
cmaldoon wrote:Also speaking of bottles, your three bottles of Sherry are in the car on their way to LA with me. I will be passing by Tytiger's place too late tonight to drop it off so I guess I will send it down to San Diego with my brother. When it gets there I'll Work address stuff with him/you to close the loop


And this means I'll have to search with additional vigor for your cab that is in limbo in some unknown box at the lockers.
Thanks.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

Ahem. Back to politics.

I hope you don't mind if we return to the previous discussion, but something stuck me at dinner, Ron. You value the term "marriage" because of its historical significance. I assume this is because what the term has meant and has continued to mean -- specifically that it defines a committed relationship where two people take vows to be with one another through sickness and health and blah blah. But you dislike, or disdain, or wish it wasn't so, that homosexuals want to use the same term. It perplexes you, or a least you idly wonder, why they must use that term. Of all the meaningless words in our dictionary, why that one?! Ok. I'm being a bit dramatic, but only for comic effect. Certainly, a homosexual couple wants to be married for the same reason the word holds such value to you. They want all the denotation, connotations, subtext, and history that the word affords. And why shouldn't they if their relationship is no less than a heterosexual couple?

I should note, if I have not made it clear yet, that I couldn't care less about a word. I'm a deconstructionist anyway, but even so, I find it quite absurd that either side would fight so vigorously for a word. From my perspective, it's about equality and not separate but equal. But if one side wants the word so much, it should be shared equally.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
kylemittskus wrote:Ahem. Back to politics.

I hope you don't mind if we return to the previous discussion, but something stuck me at dinner, Ron. You value the term "marriage" because of its historical significance. I assume this is because what the term has meant and has continued to mean -- specifically that it defines a committed relationship where two people take vows to be with one another through sickness and health and blah blah. But you dislike, or disdain, or wish it wasn't so, that homosexuals want to use the same term. It perplexes you, or a least you idly wonder, why they must use that term. Of all the meaningless words in our dictionary, why that one?! Ok. I'm being a bit dramatic, but only for comic effect. Certainly, a homosexual couple wants to be married for the same reason the word holds such value to you. They want all the denotation, connotations, subtext, and history that the word affords. And why shouldn't they if their relationship is no less than a heterosexual couple?

I should note, if I have not made it clear yet, that I couldn't care less about a word. I'm a deconstructionist anyway, but even so, I find it quite absurd that either side would fight so vigorously for a word. From my perspective, it's about equality and not separate but equal. But if one side wants the word so much, it should be shared equally.



Simplest solution but politically impossible:

At both the state and federal level give up "marriage" entirely as it is a primarily religious construct (The government does not ensure you follow your vows for example). Replace it with the identical concept of civil unions on all levels of government.

Then every Couple would have a truly equal standing under the government.

This even leads me to think of possible new revenue sources for the government: A 10 or 20% tax On the assets of any couple who dissolves a civil union

(Stops digging)


Edited: given that I was using a dictation program, there was a bit of wording confusion in the brackets in my first paragraph that is now corrected.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman
cmaldoon wrote:Simplest solution but politically impossible:

At both the state and federal level give up "marriage" entirely as it is a primarily religious construct (The government does not caliche your house for example). Replace it with the identical concept of civil unions on all levels of government.

Then every Couple would have a truly equal standing under the government.

This even leads me to think of possible new revenue sources for the government: A 10 or 20% tax On the assets of any couple who dissolves a civil union

(Stops digging)



Except for this new tax thing that's been my general position on this issue for as long as I can remember. Back when the debate was raging in Canada during my undergrad.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

InFrom


quality posts: 31 Private Messages InFrom
klezman wrote:Except for this new tax thing that's been my general position on this issue for as long as I can remember. Back when the debate was raging in Canada during my undergrad.

I try to stay away from this thread, but I have to confess to peeking. Anyway, I saw this on FB and couldn't resist. Figured this crowd would appreciate it.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Well. SCOTUS will do whatever it will do, and it likely won't make any sense. I do appreciate that we were able to discuss this without anyone bringing bigotry into it, or assuring us what God thinks of the subject, or what's natural or unnatural.

What else is going on lately?

The assault weapon ban fell flat, didn't it?

And I haven't heard much lately about sequestration and budget woes. Thankfully, my work situation hasn't changed a bit. No furloughs or other unpleasantness. But the 0.5% pay raise Obama was talking about giving us was scrapped, so pay freeze continues from 2010 or so until...the end of time, I guess.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
InFrom wrote:I try to stay away from this thread, but I have to confess to peeking. Anyway, I saw this on FB and couldn't resist. Figured this crowd would appreciate it.



People at work just asked me what I was laughing about.

That was brilliant.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 173 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Ahem. Back to politics.

I hope you don't mind if we return to the previous discussion, but something stuck me at dinner, Ron. You value the term "marriage" because of its historical significance. [...] Certainly, a homosexual couple wants to be married for the same reason the word holds such value to you. They want all the denotation, connotations, subtext, and history that the word affords. And why shouldn't they if their relationship is no less than a heterosexual couple?

ok, excepting the natural reproduction aspect, with a nod to infertile hetero couples. And I think adoption is an avenue some if not most, but then we're back to how that may affect child raising.


I should note, if I have not made it clear yet, that I couldn't care less about a word. I'm a deconstructionist anyway, but even so, I find it quite absurd that either side would fight so vigorously for a word. From my perspective, it's about equality and not separate but equal. But if one side wants the word so much, it should be shared equally.

I think you already understand my view on this, I'd like the term/word 'marriage' maintained as it has been generally accepted in recorded history, however...
Limiting this to the word only, marriage, we have the very vocal, on both sides, that have raised the emotional level of this to such a furor that some of the other issues we've discussed become a bit clouded; 'rights' and benefits to couples in some form of a committed relationship.

But regarding equality..
We are a country of States, united, the United States. Had the individual States not retained sovereignty granted and guaranteed our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments, our country would not have been founded. Those documents grant only limited authority to the Federal government; defining "marriage" is not one of them, that, being not explicitly granted to the Federal government, went to the States, individually. They can define what marriage is as well as the rights and privileges (taxes) conferred to those residing in a state. Each State can have its own definition, as many have done, and are protected by Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution in that they are not required to recognize laws of another State in conflict with their own. The benefits, and taxes, conferred by one State need not be the same as another State. And we, as citizens, have the right to chose our state of residence, based if we so chose, on the laws of our selected State.

Contrast the Federal government. They can and do tax, and through legislation they offer 'benefits' and 'entitlements' and as such set the rules and regulations and restrictions for those affected.
Here in 1 USC § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse” it has been defined as:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


So we have an inherent difference in what some State and the Federal governments consider 'marriage'. But Federal and States' laws vary on many issues. I'll not take up a fight that requires the Federal government to mandate how the individual States conduct business in this regard, that would require a constitutional amendment, but where States have established laws found unconstitutional, as we have discussed earlier, clearly action has been taken to overturn those laws. Still, the Federal government retains their right to tax and dispense benefits as prescribed by federal law. It seems it is this we should be attempting to unify, and DOMA is the prime example.

Ok, likely I've said things here that are not well thought out, and really should go back and proof-read, but I gotta get some work done to afford to hang and drink!

CT