He has come out in support of a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage. i know this is bad form to bring up such a heated debate topic here, so please no flames?

If the democrats were at all worried about voter turnout they have no need to be now. there will be a huge swell in democrat voters who will turn out to the polls in November. and there will be a fair number of people,IMHO, who, like me, will not vote for him now. I believe the government needs to stay out of people's private lives when they are not doing anything to harm others or to deprive others of their rights. this is just stepping in where the government doesnt belong.

so is he asking to not be re-elected?

yeah i don't think this is a smart move by W

Prohibition anyone??

TIIIIIMMMYY! Damn, I keep doing that.

Anyway I agree. I will vote. I don't really care who the person next door chooses to be with as long as they are consenting adults and they are happy. I think that Bush needs be really careful about changing the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is going too far. I am actually laughing with all the people and judges who are doing this in the face of some real strong "Holy Rollers". They seem to think that they are still by far the majority. Maybe in some small towns and a few states they still are but on the continental and global arena they are just small beans.

Don't get me wrong I am not putting them down for their beliefs. I am only putting down people who think that I should share their religious beliefs.

Whew! That was close, I almost posted without the above clause written in.

I think he is stepping over the line with this talk of amending the constitution. I agree with Newsom when he calls it discrimination written into our constitution. I will definitely vote against Bush. Too many things leave me nodding my head wondering exactly what he is doing.

i am hoping this ban dosent pass. And for the election i will vote for kerry. Any body is better than bush.

I would have voted against Bush anyway, because of all his lies and for the hopefully not yet irreparable harm he has done to this country. But this was a stupid move on his part -- as others have said, all he has done is polarize voters (whether for or against him). Though the polls still show a narrow majority of Americans are against gay marriage, they also show that most Americans don't think it belongs in the Constitution!

I was watching BBC News this afternoon, and it was interesting to see the viewpoint from outside the US. They see Bush's move for what it is: an election year trick to put his Democratic opponents on the spot and divert attention from the real issues.

Oh, and if you notice in my first sentence, I said I would have voted "against Bush" anyway, not "for Kerry". Definitely a lesser of evils.

thanks for keeping it in line guys. this is eaxactly what i was going for. the political ramifications of this stance are just so obvious, i cant believe he would do it.

I love how the fascist branch of the Republican party espouses how they hate "big government" and cry about infringements on freedoms like gun control. Yet when something is different than them, let's say homosexual union, they want to ban it. If they could, they would ban homosexuality entirely and reinstitute segregation.

I predict, at any moment, doc will intercede and show all of us how dumb we are and show us the light.

P.S. My first paragraph has been deleted under the advice of counsel.

Like I've said before, GWB is making an America that I am not very proud of right now.

Vince

babylou,

This is political, not personal. Attack Bush like you did in your second paragraph and keep it intelligent. The first paragraph is designed to trigger an emotional response and this is the kind of thing that gets Bush in so much trouble. For example, terrorism is bad, don't do terrorism (in the voice of Mr. Mackey) or talking about how Bush has a if you're not exactly like me you are EVIL stance on politics and foreign relations. These are acceptable. But resorting to penis size and the shape of his nose... not ok ;) .

I think if Bush had his way this would be a fundamentalist Christian world order...

50 years ago, the majority of americans would have been against blacks and whites eating, voting, and attending schools together. 100 years ago, the majority of American (males) were against women voting. And don't forget about slavery- that too was justified by the bible. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks if it's still wrong-it all comes down to basic human rights. Bush is shooting himself in the foot. Not that I ever would have voted for him even if this didn't come up anyway, because I hate many of his other policies (snowmobiles in famous parks anyone? Why not ruin some more relatively unpolluted land!). But this is really inexcusable.

And before anyone jumps on me, I have nothing against christianity- I am Lutheran by faith. However, I do have a problem with anyone who forces their religious beliefs on anyone else, which is exactly what Bush is trying to do.

hey someone move this to polls so i can moderate it. i will edit all the inflammatory comments. all if someone uses a personal insult against someone in this thread IGNORE IT! so i don't have to edit your posts. got it?

What Elara said...

Vince

Elara couldn't have said it any better than how I'd explained it to my friends when I brought up this topic. It's not a matter of what "I" think is right or wrong... and it's not about what the "Majority" supposedly thinks is right... it's about being fair to all citizens of the United States of America.

What majority are we discussing here? If this country was trully based on majority beliefs, GWB wouldn't even be President.

The simple fact is, this is a church issue... Why is GWB enforcing his religious beliefs down people's throats? This just emphasises how he uses Fear to gain support. Let the church tell these human beings.... "Hey, it's fine you believe in the same God we do,... but if you guys keep doing that gay stuff, we say you are wrong, God will say you are wrong, and you are all bad." That makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

It seems like GWB and the government is more upset with this than the Relgious order... I would love to see Pope John Paul come out and say Gays are terrible people..etc. How many Gay people do you think have it bad enough already that they are alienated in society, and have their own beliefs bash them down?

Writing this into the Constitution would merely marr the fabric of equality, political correctness, for which Bush adamently stands against for when it comes to human rights.

I'm hoping that he's doing this now simply because he wants the people to stop questioning him about..."Hey GWB, I could swear there was this big mess called 9/11... we were suppose to go after Osama Bin Laden... but why did we go to IRAQ to FREE their people, take over their oil fields, and try to force our democracy down their throats?"

Yes I know Saddam is a baddddd man... but shouldn't that have been handled by the UN, and not policed by the US? No wonder so many other countries think we're wacky. First we say "FREEDOM" to all.. yet we don't give Gay people the freedom to marry just like the rest of society. Second we support peace and prosperity. Instead we have a fear instilled in us of this "terrorist" threat, and people that are becoming poor because of how big business is shelted by the protection of the government.. *coughEnroncoughHalliburtoncough*

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
babylou,

This is political, not personal.

I completely and utterly disagree. This issue is very personal. If I were homosexual I would be incensed that another group wants to ban my behaviour that is private and does not remotely affect them.

Originally posted by babylou
I completely and utterly disagree. This issue is very personal. If I were homosexual I would be incensed that another group wants to ban my behaviour that is private and does not remotely affect them.

The action we are discussing has nothing to do with banning anyone's behavior (though I daresay if things continue as they are, that will be what Bush and Ashcroft go after next). This is about treating one group differently than another group. This is about creating two classes of people in the United States -- those who have full status and protection of law as full citizens, and those who are almost full citizens. This is about continuing down the slippery slope of eroding rights and freedoms we've already been started on with the so-called Patriot Act.

And this is about GWB wanting to be re-elected, and wanting to leave his mark, any mark, on history. Remember how hard his father tried to modify the U.S. Constitution with an amendment to ban flag burning? It seemed that his main goal as President was to modify the Constitution. Now GWB wants to do the same thing, leave a mark. Well, he's already done so...a black, ugly mark. And he's wiping his a** with the Constitution in the process. :mad:

I can't believe my mom just said to me..."Bush is doing the right thing..." She thinks that it's wrong. Perhaps it's the old way of thinking. Then I told her that ..."They are also banning marriage by Chinese people with the rest of America." *Since we're Chinese* She was like.."Omg, that is terrible, how can he do that." Uhmmm.... I can't believe it.

The Patriot act. The main reason I would not vote for him. He has a lot at this point really.

babylou,

Sorry I wasn't trying to attack what you said... I was trying to make a point about the type of statement you made. Bush (regardless of what we might think of his opinion) expressed his point in a political fashion. He didn't say hey! babylou! You, yeah I'm talking to you... Which is the way I felt your statement was trying to say. That causes an emotional response to the reader that will surely in a lot of cases keep you from being heard. Your point is no longer the issue being brought forward but instead it is the emotion.

Look at how advertisers and Bush use this. When Bush wanted to sell us on the Iraq (I will loosely use the term scandal here) He made it seem like the "GREAT EVIL" over there was coming to get us. As we get into the thick of things it comes out that the "GREAT EVIL" wasn't so great after all. Advertisers do the same thing. If you buy the RX-8 for example it will love you just as much as you love it... hey wait that is a bad example since that really does happen... er... let's see where was I... Well you get the point. This is basic psychology. Don't get the bastards rared up and ready to fight or get emotional back. Make them think logically...

Originally posted by Elara
50 years ago, the majority of americans would have been against blacks and whites eating, voting, and attending schools together. 100 years ago, the majority of American (males) were against women voting. And don't forget about slavery- that too was justified by the bible. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks if it's still wrong-it all comes down to basic human rights. Bush is shooting himself in the foot. Not that I ever would have voted for him even if this didn't come up anyway, because I hate many of his other policies (snowmobiles in famous parks anyone? Why not ruin some more relatively unpolluted land!). But this is really inexcusable.

And before anyone jumps on me, I have nothing against christianity- I am Lutheran by faith. However, I do have a problem with anyone who forces their religious beliefs on anyone else, which is exactly what Bush is trying to do.

I'll be damned.......well spoken Elara

First of all, I just want to say how impressed I am with this thread. It's actually an intelligent conversation without a lot of personal attacks.

I agree that from a purely political standpoint, it seems like an odd move. There are many republicans who have already come out against a constitutional amendment. The move will certainly bring out more voters against the movement whom might have previously stayed at home on Election Day.

There are only two questions that need to be answered: Is there a LEGAL benefit to being married? Yes. Would allowing same sex Marriages deny anyone else ther own civil rights? NO. What happened to the seperation of church and state? I can't understand how this open discrimination is being discussed in regards to an amendment to the Constitution. If that thief in the White House gets his way I am seriously considering taking my wife and children and leaving this country behind. Very disturbing.

I wonder if we would get this Anti Banning sentiment in the South or other conservative states... Or is this just me, and how I see the nature of California. I know we're all a bit more open-minded here...afterall, the gay licenses started popping out here in SF. What I would like to see is George Bush explaining to the US public why he thinks this is bad. I would love to hear how his God taught him it's bad. Then I would ask.. so how do you know your God is the right God? Then he would say.."Because I have faith."... which will piss off all the other demoninations,...oh wells. I wonder if any of these debates would happen if we had no religion at all... it seems to me that Religion causes more problems than resolve them.

Guys/ girls, I'm surprised, there are no Republicans here? Everyone is so level-headed. Or do Republicans not drive RX-8s?

-Peter

(I am not a US citizen, so I don't vote.)

Originally posted by Elara
50 years ago, the majority of americans would have been against blacks and whites eating, voting, and attending schools together. 100 years ago, the majority of American (males) were against women voting. And don't forget about slavery- that too was justified by the bible. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks if it's still wrong-it all comes down to basic human rights. Bush is shooting himself in the foot. Not that I ever would have voted for him even if this didn't come up anyway, because I hate many of his other policies (snowmobiles in famous parks anyone? Why not ruin some more relatively unpolluted land!). But this is really inexcusable.

And before anyone jumps on me, I have nothing against christianity- I am Lutheran by faith. However, I do have a problem with anyone who forces their religious beliefs on anyone else, which is exactly what Bush is trying to do.

In the mid-50's my Mom was working in a drugstore in North Carolina. The custom was that "coloreds" would order at the counter and be given their sandwiches in a sack to be taken outside. One day two servicemen got off the train and came in. They were "Yankees" and didn't know about the "policy". One was white and the other black and they were buddies. Owner told my Mom she had to give the "colored" his lunch in a sack. She said that if he wanted to tell these 2 men who were defending his country that one of them wasn't good enough to set at the counter then he could be the one to do it and she would quit. She served them both and that was the end of the lunchcounter segregation in that drugstore.

Discrimination doesn't change gradually. It's either there or it isn't. It often takes some risk and defiance to make the change. That's what San Francisco is doing.

If I wasn't already convinced that george bush wasn't the worst president in history, this "amendment-backing" clinches it.

He doesn't like the judicial branch of government and their "arbitrary" decisions (i.e. the ones he doesn't agree with). He knows the prohibition of same-sex marriage will eventually be declared un-Constitutional. His solution is to change the friggin' Constitution by adding a discrimination clause!!! Unbelievable.

This is a political move to polarize the election. He's counting on the fact that a majority of citizens poll as being against gay marriage. I'm hoping we're not too far gone as a country for citizens not to realize the totally un-american agenda of this man. Either that or he's just following someone else's agenda and too dumb to know what it means.

I don't know what it is about marriage that he's trying to "protect". We're married for 12 years and live real close to SF. So far, we're doing ok. Haven't even had to dip into the canned goods in the bomb shelter. We haven't sensed any fumes, radiation or "cooties". We still love each other deeply.

So it comes down to religion and I was always taught there was a separation of Church and State. Apparently george went to a different school (did anyone see him?). He clearly tied government and religion together in his abomination of a State of the Union address. And now his prime argument for an Constitutional Amendment is a religious one! Yes, the same man who took us to war against "fundamental extremists". What a dumb-a$$.

Excellent post and pic Nubo!

Originally posted by mamccubbin
First of all, I just want to say how impressed I am with this thread. It's actually an intelligent conversation without a lot of personal attacks.



Yes, me too- I am completely amazed by this thread- you guys are great. But, so far we're all agreeing, and we have yet to hear how the dissenting side feels....

Originally posted by Elara
..... and we have yet to hear how the dissenting side feels....

When such an intrinsically wrong-headed argument is taken out of its religious emotional womb, there is very little, and nothing rational, its defenders can say... after all what "truth" would they raise in their idea's defense??... therefore... silence (and I'm not trying to bait anyone either).

If it ever gets so far (in the senate), we'll all finally have a roll call tally of our elected officials and who isn't of sound rational mind, but rather is working with a grounding in religious/political bigotry.

As if the world doesn't already have enough BAD EXAMPLES of this kind of thought already.... :mad:

Marriage was originally a religious concept that is now completely ingrained in the laws of our society. This is the basic problem with gay marriage. Marriage is defined by many other aspects besides the sex of the people involved. It affects distribution of property, etc. If gays are allowed to marry in the traditional sense then you change not only the meaning of the word but it would affect the overall process.

Logically there would be no end to redefinition of marriage if you go down this path. Why stop at 2 people any more? If 5 people love each other they should be allowed to get married then as well. Why can't I marry my dog? My neighbor just got married to 2 guys and 3 girls. Let's pass a law allowing bestiality marriage! See my point?

So to me it's more about retaining the reality of what marriage truly is in our society.

As you can guess I'm leaning towards no gay marriage. Not because I have anything against homosexuals at all. I certainly feel for them with this issue. I do think that civil unions should have the same benefits and fall under the same laws as a normal marriages.

RotaryStalker

Originally posted by Elara
50 years ago, the majority of americans would have been against blacks and whites eating, voting, and attending schools together. 100 years ago, the majority of American (males) were against women voting. And don't forget about slavery- that too was justified by the bible. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks if it's still wrong-it all comes down to basic human rights. Bush is shooting himself in the foot. Not that I ever would have voted for him even if this didn't come up anyway, because I hate many of his other policies (snowmobiles in famous parks anyone? Why not ruin some more relatively unpolluted land!). But this is really inexcusable.

And before anyone jumps on me, I have nothing against christianity- I am Lutheran by faith. However, I do have a problem with anyone who forces their religious beliefs on anyone else, which is exactly what Bush is trying to do.

Well stated Elara...This has been the problem with government over the years..we aren't progressing forward we are actually falling back into early America...

This is the whole reason Church and State were separated...now i'm wacky when it comes to religion because I (being brought up Catholic and still adhere to some form of it) think of the church as more of a governing body and "corporation" now instead of a religious entity...but we won't get into that in this discussion...Bush as we've already seen is a devout Christian who is very spiritual BUT I believe he uses that as a "tool" to calm the majority of Americans when he makes his SOMETIMES rash decisions...being that alot of americans weigh heavily into the teachings of the bible I think Bush exploits this and uses it to garner support for his executive desicion making...

I think he is thinking more with his morals in mind than with what is constitutionally right...now I don't agree with Gay marriage either but when it comes to LAW, he is in direct violation of it and a hypocrite in of himself to CHANGE the constitution to BAN gay marriage...your right...what harm comes from a same sex union...none...sure it's different..but American's do not rest easy with DIFFERENCE...it's easier to see it when you are an outsider looking in...(german-italian here)...like Elara stated ...he's messing with the Human Rights clause...if he bans this he might as well ban the african-american, womens, and immigrant human rights as well and go back to where we were in the earliest days of our country...."One small step for GWB...One Giant leap backwards for everyone else..."

Straight ticket Republican voter here (ok, I voted for Clinton-once). I'm not at all happy with GWBs wanting to amend the Constitution over this issue. I suspect, however, that the Congress will not allow a Constitutional amendment to gain any ground at all. What we are seeing is the last gasp of institutionalized prejudice against gays fading away. A change of this magnitude frightens people, just like black civil rights and women's equality frightened previous generations.

Politically, I think GWB's stand on this issue is the best political move he could make. Gays largely vote Democrat. If GW supported gay marriage, he would likely pick up a few votes from gay voters but would lose votes is large numbers from conservative voters. Further, any Democrat that comes out in favor of gay marriage will alienate conservative Dems and fence sitters, likely costing them these votes while they will not pick up any significant votes from gays as they already had the gay vote by virtue of being a Democrat. Political genius here!

As far as the Iraq and WMDs go, I do not believe that there was an intelligence failure nor was there any deception on the part of our politicians. What happened here is very simple: Saddam wanted us to think he had far far more WMDs then he actually had. He continued to play shell games with the weapons inspectors, refused to account for the weapons we knew he had, and likely intentionally leaked information suggesting significant WMD programs and activities through so called defectors. All of this done to cause the US to not want to engage in a military conflict with Iraq. This is an old trick. The Russians did it to us, the Nazis did it to England, the US did it to the Nazis before D-Day, etc. Unfortunately for him, Saddam did it too well and got spanked for his efforts.

Prior to the 1990s, terrorists avoided striking at US citizens or US targets out of fear that they would provoke massive retaliation from us. Then Somalia happened. Somalia saw us engaged in the most intense firefight since Vietnam. Our Rangers were outnumbered literally thousands to one yet inflicted horrific casualties on their Somali attackers and were able to make their escape despite overwhelming numbers of fighters trying to stop them. This was an overwhelming victory for the US. Unfortunately, a handful of Ranger casualties was enough to cause the President to withdraw our forces from Somalia. The clear message sent to our enemies was simple: America has no stomach for casualties. Kill a few of us, as we will run away. The terrorists were counting on the US not being willing to fight and not being willing to sustain any significant casualties. They figured wrong.

If the terrorists want to live their lives like their ancestors did thousands of years ago, fine, great, go for it, send me a postcard. When they attack us with the goal of effectively destroying our civilization and our entire way of life, they have forced us to either surrender or fight. I choose to fight.

I don't think this is much of a gimme for the Dems. The AP has a map today (Feb 25) listing which states ban gay marriages, and there are a total of 39 states that currently ban gay marriages. A pro gay marriage stance will not sit well with some Hispanics or black church members, who are socially conservative, and more pressure on this from the left could alienate moderate Dems and southern folk.

The homosexuals have no one to blame but gay activists for this state and federal backlash. The will of the people in Mass. prior to this hoopla was that marriage was one man and one woman. The activists got three judges to overrule the will of the people. And in San Fran there is a mayor who is ignoring the will of the people in Calif, where the people also passed a law that defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. With the will of the people no longer meaning anything, there is a backlash. The Mass legislature is trying to come up with a way to change their constitution, and now Bush is looking at the same thing at the Federal level, where his previous stance was to let the individual states (will of the people) decide. Since the will of the people in two locales no longer means anything, someone's got to come to the rescue.

If the gay activists would have instead tried to change things by working on the will of the people, instead of subverting the will of the people, in due time (maybe overdue time) they would have obtained what they want in many states. Soon their job will be much harder. Since the Fed constitutional amendment will take so long to succeed, expect some legislation from Congress that will define (or reemphasize) that for the purpose of Federal benefits, marriage is a union of 1 man and 1 woman. The net result will be a step back for the homosexuals. This is still an issue that the leftists will lose and the moderates and conservatives will "win" on.

^^^ Well said

RotaryStalker

Briguy.. you do know that the US have been going into Baghdad since 1991 every single week dropping sporadic bombing on that country to punish Saddam for the Kuwait fiasco. How can the US not be aware of what the Iraqi's are capable of... and how can you say the US tried to avoid this?

Its funny how most of the posters are from california. Being californian myself, I'm disappointed by W's stance on this issue, homosexuals deserve equal protection and representation.
Unfortunately, W's move is more political than personal. It is in his best interest to ban gay marriages since most of his supporters are conservatives. Being californians, we're freaks of nature when it comes to politics. Most of the other states already ban same sex marriages and discrimination on homosexuals and other minorities are rampant. Most voters would probably vote to ban anyhow, just as a reflection of their own bias's on homosexuals, same as it happened in CALIFORNIA not too long ago. The polls already show that he is gaining in points after he made the anti-gaymarriage statement and it will continue to rise. Other candidates will probably jump onto banning same sex marriages just so they can have a chance to win this thing.
Violation of civil rights is no new thing, its been done on practically every election this country has held. And why can this go on you ask after years of education and civil rights movements? Simply because most voting Americans are conservatives and cultrually biased. If you cry that this is total bullshit statement, I suggest you take a trip to any part of this country, big cities, rural counties, even where minorities outnumber the majority and try walking down the street being a black, hispanic, asian, homosexual, Hindu, Islamic, Indian, etc etc. The discrimination is there and its very real and its all over the place. All W's guilty of is taking advantage of the situation and appealing to the voting majority. Sure, W might be homophobic and this might serve his personal agenda, but that point doesn't matter since he's a packaged product of the American political system.
Contrary to the title of this thread, W definitely WANTS to be president again, and the way things are going, I'd bet my last dollar that he'll win this election, even if he has to cheat like last time.

thanks for the opposing points of view people. well said everyone.

Originally posted by ptiemann
Guys/ girls, I'm surprised, there are no Republicans here? Everyone is so level-headed. Or do Republicans not drive RX-8s?

-Peter

(I am not a US citizen, so I don't vote.)

This issue has NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with Republicans vs. Democrats. It's all about GWB handing a bone to the extreme right-wing religious faction.

Originally posted by ggreen29
Since the will of the people in two locales no longer means anything, someone's got to come to the rescue.


Where was the "will of the people" when GWB was handed the title of President despite losing the popular vote (the very definition of the "will of the people")?

Outlaws Extreme, Yes, we were patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. And yes, when the Iraqis would turn on the targeting radar from a SAM site we would launch a HARM and blow up the site. All of this was agreed to by the Iraqis as part of the cease fire from the first gulf war. It was in no way punishment. Iraq agreed to leave the Kurds alone, and they agreed that we would patrol the no-fly zones, and they agreed that they would in no way threaten our aircraft and crews flying those missions.

We also enforced the UN's grueling economic sanctions against Iraq which devastated the country. Saddam had to merely cooperate with the UN and those sanctions would have been lifted, but he chose non-cooperation instead.

Yes, our government knows all too well what Saddam is capable of: murdering entire villages using poison gas, killing political dissidents, slaughtering people at random just to keep people afraid of him. When a nut case like this try’s to convince us that he is better armed than he really is, its a very easy message to accept. For example, during WW2 our A-Bomb program was aggressively pushed forward because we believed that the Germans were much closer to developing a bomb than they actually were. Also, our intelligence services flat out refused to believe that Hitler was systematically murdering Jews on a large scale. We thought those reports were Jewish propaganda. It was too horrible to even conceive. Intelligence gathering is not a perfect science.

I think the bottom line is that we needed to send a message to all of the middle east dictators out there. Arab culture respects strength, and Saddam was respected in the Arab world because he stood up to the UN and the US. By successfully deposing Saddam, (and the Taliban before him) we demonstrated our power and our willingness to fight back. These dictators are asking themselves if they are next.

Harsh? Perhaps, but that is the reality we are faced with. These fanatics are not interested in negotiation. They want to destroy us and our way of life. Negotiating with terrorists will be no more effective than negotiating with Hitler was.

Now as to why this isn't a matter of "equal rights" and why the cries of discrimination are obtuse.

First of all marriage isn't a "right", it's a licensed activity. Anything that is licensed is not a right, but a privelege, with requirements incumbent on the applicant(s) . Licensing authorities are REQUIRED to discriminate when issuing licenses. The WHOLE purpose of licensing is to discriminate for those that meet the requirements and to discriminate against those that don't meet the requirements of the license.

If I want a driver's license I have to meet certain requirements to obtain that license. Medical licenses, liquor licenses, lawyer, hair dresser, pilot's licenses, etc, all have requirements levied on the applicants. Because I have an engineering degree doesn't give me a "right" to a medical license. Only fulfilling the requirements of a medical license will get me a medical license...no matter how much I am in love with a medical license.

The situation for marriage is the same. Certain requirements are levied upon the applicants in order to get their marriage license. If I walk in with my sister and say that we have a "right" to get married, the licensing authority is REQUIRED to discriminate against us and refuse to issue the license. If I walk in with your currently married wife and say that we have a "right" to get married, the licensing authority is once again REQUIRED to discriminate against us and refuse to issue the license. If I walk in with my wife AND my mistress and say that we all have a "right" to get married, the licensing authority is once again REQUIRED to discriminate against us and refuse to issue the license. Discrimination is essential to the licensing authority...no matter how much I love my incestual/bigamist/polygamist/homosexual partner(s).

As for civil rights, a homosexual man has the same requirement (not right) to marriage as a heterosexual man; an eligible woman. There is No unequal treatment. They both have exactly the same requirements. Again There is No unequal treatment.

Consenting adults do have a genuine right to live with anyone(s) of their choosing, but if they want a marriage license, they have to meet the marriage licensing requirements. This is the way licensing law works. If people don't like the law than please change it by influencing popular will. Don't usurp or ignore the law, otherwise we'll end like Haiti.

Where was the "will of the people" when GWB was handed the title of President despite losing the popular vote (the very definition of the "will of the people")?
Read your copy of the US constitution, the answer is there. No disrespect but, why are so many liberals so cavalier about laws?

Originally posted by jtimbck2
Where was the "will of the people" when GWB was handed the title of President despite losing the popular vote (the very definition of the "will of the people")?

The President of the United States is not elected directly by the people. The Electoral College elects the President. Each state is assigned a number of delegates to the Electoral College. Win the state, get the delegates. It is not necessary, by the deliberate design of our system, for the President to win the popular vote. Why? A few very good reasons: One, if a popular vote elected the President directly, a coalition of just a few large states could effectively run the country. The Electoral College system assures that small states have influence in the affairs of the nation. Also, there was a certain fear that the population at large might one day elect a tyrant, or some such rogue, to the Presidency. The Electoral College was thought to provide a fail safe in that the College could vote their conscience and avoid putting a dictator in power (don't forget, Hitler was elected by the German people in 1933 in a free election).

No, not a perfect system, but its the best one anyone has thought up yet.

Originally posted by RotaryStalker
So to me it's more about retaining the reality of what marriage truly is in our society.

The reality of what marriage truly is in our society is that the divorce rate is over 50%. Heterosexuals have done a fine job all by themselves of trashing "traditional" marriage. Marraige - healthy marriage, that is, meaning two people who love and are committed to each other - strengthens relationships and strengthens society, and if gay people want to do that, what business is it of mine? Or the govermnent's?

I figure if you've ever been divorced, or if you've ever cheated on your spouse, you lost the right to have a dog in this fight unless you're gonna get behind fair play for marriage and support it.

My two cents.

ggreen29.

Again, well said. I often wonder why people feel it's simply an issue of discrimination. Relating this issue to slavery and woman's right to vote, etc. is blurring the actual facts as to why a lot of people are against it.

Am I discriminating against gays by not supporting this issue? Nope.

RotaryStalker

Makes you think why the public even votes anyways... if only a few in each state dictates who the President should be.

you lost the right to have a dog in this fight unless you're gonna get behind fair play for marriage and support it

So if it's all about fair play can I marry my dog? I love him so why not? Why can't I marry more than one person? Is it not possible for 3 people to be in love? Happens more then you'd think. Why does it have to be about only 2 people? If you're going to redefine what marriage is then drop the 2 people thing. IMO it's stupidly restrictive.

RotaryStalker

Originally posted by ggreen29
Now as to why this isn't a matter of "equal rights" and why the cries of discrimination are obtuse.

First of all marriage isn't a "right", it's a licensed activity. Anything that is licensed is not a right, but a privelege, with requirements incumbent on the applicant(s) . Licensing authorities are REQUIRED to discriminate when issuing licenses. The WHOLE purpose of licensing is to discriminate for those that meet the requirements and to discriminate against those that don't meet the requirements of the license.

If I want a driver's license I have to meet certain requirements to obtain that license. Medical licenses, liquor licenses, lawyer, hair dresser, pilot's licenses, etc, all have requirements levied on the applicants. Because I have an engineering degree doesn't give me a "right" to a medical license. Only fulfilling the requirements of a medical license will get me a medical license...no matter how much I am in love with a medical license.

The situation for marriage is the same. Certain requirements are levied upon the applicants in order to get their marriage license. If I walk in with my sister and say that we have a "right" to get married, the licensing authority is REQUIRED to discriminate against us and refuse to issue the license. If I walk in with your currently married wife and say that we have a "right" to get married, the licensing authority is once again REQUIRED to discriminate against us and refuse to issue the license. If I walk in with my wife AND my mistress and say that we all have a "right" to get married, the licensing authority is once again REQUIRED to discriminate against us and refuse to issue the license. Discrimination is essential to the licensing authority...no matter how much I love my incestual/bigamist/polygamist/homosexual partner(s).

As for civil rights, a homosexual man has the same requirement (not right) to marriage as a heterosexual man; an eligible woman. There is No unequal treatment. They both have exactly the same requirements. Again There is No unequal treatment.

Consenting adults do have a genuine right to live with anyone(s) of their choosing, but if they want a marriage license, they have to meet the marraige licensing requirements. This is the way licensing law works. If people don't like the law than please change it by iunfluencing popular will. Don't usurp or ignore the law, otherwise we'll end like Haiti.

This is so very much about equal rights. If you think marriage is merely a license, I suppose you'd think that tax protection is not a right. Neither is being exempt from the draft for being MARRIED and having dependants. Nor are all the other breaks married people get in consideration for loans, certain government programs and healthcare. Are these not rights? How fair is it that gay couples have to pay higher taxes, get denied certain medical benefits, get drafted in cases of war, get denied loans and can't afford housing.

And I point you to the anti-miscegenation laws of the late 19th and early to mid 20th century where MINORITIES were denied the right to marry outside the race. Was that also because they simply did not fit the requirements for the license or because of flat out discrimination which aimed to place minorities as second-class citizens? This is a huge slap in the face to civil rights movement when a certain group is singled out to be discriminated by the law. The law isn't merely stating that you have to meet certain requirements, its saying that homosexuals cannot marry the ones they love, it is putting levy on their beliefs and way of life.

I'd say letting a law like this stay and allowing the discrimination to continue would more likely get us closer to Haiti's social unrest.

I'm a married heterosexual and used to pay higher taxes then 2 heterosexuals who weren't married. It was called the marriage penalty.

Now you're saying that 2 people (regardless of sex) who live together pay higher taxes?

Show me proof that two men living together pay higher taxes then a man and a woman living together. Show me any taxes that are levied against gays that are not levied against straight people. There are none. There is no discrimination and there's no issue of equal rights. The tax system certainly isn't perfect but it doesn't target gays at all.

RotaryStalker

The last time someone tried to create a society that was "fair" a big chunk of the globe was enslaved in communist hell for three quarters of a century. <rant off>

Every society has rules, both formal and informal, that are essential so that we can predictably interact with each other. We may very well be at a point where we, as a society, choose to extend the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

IMHO, freedom means being allowed to engage in any course of action which does not harm others and the consequences of which the individual involved is willing and able to accept.

marriage penalty as in double income family? fine. point well taken. There are definitely families who pay higher taxes due to combined income and pooled resources. But even these families can claim dependants and other expenses. You ever tried claiming depedants while being single?
I'm afraid I can't provide you with my tax returns, but if people didn't derive certain tax benefits from marriage, I doubt anyone would ever marry.
And this thread isn't even about taxes, you're just focusing on a single aspect of my argument against this issue and diverting from the main argument. I used taxes as an example of unfair treatment, not as the main point in my argument. If you're going down this road, please also comment on my examples of the draft, anti-miscegenation laws, and healthcare, not just the taxes.

I used taxes as an example of unfair treatment, not as the main point in my argument. If you're going down this road, please also comment on my examples of the draft, anti-miscegenation laws, and healthcare, not just the taxes.

I would but none of your examples are specific to homosexuals.

but if people didn't derive certain tax benefits from marriage, I doubt anyone would ever marry.

There are tons of people who avoided marriage exactly because of this reason. Where have you been lately? Me and my wife got married without regard to the extra couple of hundred (or whatever) we would lose per year compared to us not being married. For us it was simply important that we did it.

you're just focusing on a single aspect of my argument against this issue and diverting from the main argument

My attempt was to point out to you that your points are not relative to the discussion. Try not to be so sensitive.

RotaryStalker

you are right. i was way off topic. I appoligize for my tone and impetousness. I am young still and can be a little hot-blooded when it comes to such issues that are close to my heart.

Let me try to put things back on topic by restating that Bush made a smart political move.

Time will tell whether he made a smart humanitarian move.

Originally posted by BriGuy
Politically, I think GWB's stand on this issue is the best political move he could make. Gays largely vote Democrat. If GW supported gay marriage, he would likely pick up a few votes from gay voters but would lose votes is large numbers from conservative voters. Further, any Democrat that comes out in favor of gay marriage will alienate conservative Dems and fence sitters, likely costing them these votes while they will not pick up any significant votes from gays as they already had the gay vote by virtue of being a Democrat. Political genius here!

Prior to the 1990s, terrorists avoided striking at US citizens or US targets out of fear that they would provoke massive retaliation from us. Then Somalia happened...

If the terrorists want to live their lives like their ancestors did thousands of years ago, fine, great, go for it, send me a postcard. When they attack us with the goal of effectively destroying our civilization and our entire way of life, they have forced us to either surrender or fight. I choose to fight.

I had to quote this again, because this is BRILLIANT! Sure was a nice touchy-feely thread with all the like-minded liberals gathered around the campfire singing Kumbaya until you and Rotary Stalker showed up.

I can't say it better than you did above, you have an incredible grasp of the situation. It doesn't matter whether the amendment is passed (it probably won't be), it's just election-year manipulation.

I was laughing as I kept reading all the liberals saying, "I wasn't going to vote for him anyway...." EXACTLY. So why should he pander to you? The people that support him are elderly and conservative, and this is what they want. The young/gay/pierced Californians don't support him, and wouldn't no matter what, so they can go back to their protest marches and complain some more. "Tell you what," he's saying, "You can have all the gays, and I'll take all the NASCAR fans. How about that?"

Meanwhile, I feel safe in my country, thank you.

Originally posted by RX8Bliss
You ever tried claiming dependants while being single?
I'm afraid I can't provide you with my tax returns, but if people didn't derive certain tax benefits from marriage, I doubt anyone would ever marry.


Well, if you have dependents, as defined by law, then you can claim them. Being married does not magically let you create dependents, er, unless you actually do create them.....

The "marriage penalty" may or may not occur, depending upon each couples specific circumstances. It usually occurs when both people earn a good income, because of the graduated income tax rates that are used in our tax system.

As your income rises, the next dollar of income is taxed at progressively higher rates. Two married people will have their incomes added together and the rate of tax appropriate for that income will be calculated. If these two people were both earning their same income and were not married, each one would have some of their income taxed at the 15% rate, gradually rising until the maximum rate of 38.6%. Being married, only one of them, effectively, will realize the benefit of the graduated tax rates. The other will be effectively taxed at the highest marginal tax rate applicable for the couple.

Marriage penalty relief was passed by the Congress and signed by the President and will begin affecting taxpayers starting in 2005.

Civil Union or Marriage?

For those whom believe in Marriage between a Man and a Women ... Question? Do you think it would correct if the goverment ask this of all the married couples....
Who are you Married to?
a.) White b.) Black c.) Hispanic d.) Asian e.) Other Nationality, If Answered d. explain: __________________

You all know that question in WRONG! It should not matter whom you are married to.

So, if they call it anything else other than Marriage. It will be WRONG. Calling it a Civil Union is like putting a label on it and leaving the door open for futher discrimination.

[i]
The homosexuals have no one to blame but gay activists for this state and federal backlash. The will of the people in Mass. prior to this hoopla was that marriage was one man and one woman. The activists got three judges to overrule the will of the people. And in San Fran there is a mayor who is ignoring the will of the people in Calif, where the people also passed a law that defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. With the will of the people no longer meaning anything, there is a backlash. The Mass legislature is trying to come up with a way to change their constitution, and now Bush is looking at the same thing at the Federal level, where his previous stance was to let the individual states (will of the people) decide. Since the will of the people in two locales no longer means anything, someone's got to come to the rescue. [/B]

The "will of the people" is not the sole criterion and justice is not a popularity contest. There have been any number of discriminatory laws througout American history which were backed by a solid majority of the people. Sometimes it was the Court system which rectified these laws (overturning the "will of the people").

Good posts Briguy!!! Let me make a few points. GWB isn't about banning gay union. He just doesn't want "marriage" to start carrying a different meaning. Let's face it, you who are so proud of your rotaries, would you like the piston drivers to claim they are rotary drivers? You might be offended too. Not because they're worse, but that it's just not true. And physically speaking, forget religion, could you ever get your RX8 moving if it only had 4 rotors and no casing? Could you ever assemble anything with two bolts or two nuts? Also anyone who is married heterosexually knows how much you learn about the opposite sex. If everyone were gay, there would be a nice split between men and women. Would that world ever work? NO!!! However it has worked for centuries as heterosexuals. And Democrats really need to get over their loss with Gore. He lost fair and square. Read your laws. If you don't like the Electoral College Method then change the laws before you lose. LOGIC WILL SET YOU FREE!!! :)

SpeedERDoc,

Be careful who you are calling "touchy feely"... As some of the people here already know I have been studying martial arts for over 20 years, have a cpl and carry, and am not exactly a liberal. I claim no party affiliation. I vote for who I think is going to do the best job. I think that civil rights are important and I feel that FREEDOM is what our country is built upon. I not only love my country but I am willing to fight for the rights of people who are fellow citizens in it. I will march if I want, I will protest and these are rights that were handed down to me by the forefathers of this great country.

I was enjoying a debate where personal insults were not thrown around and I understand that you have an opinion and I respect yours (even if I don't agree with it). You are entitled to have that opinion. My guess was that you were calling the conversation "touchy feely" because we weren't throwing personal insults around. I refuse. This isn't a school-yard fight, but rather a serious political debate. The issue isn't one that will be solved this way. Oh and notice that I am not living in California. Eastern Washington is a very conservative region and it still seems that the majority of people disagree with church and state becoming one.

We have seen the results of legislation which evolved around a puritanical government (Prohibition and the Marijuana Tax Act are some examples). We will continously be evolving the social, cultural and governmental rules and laws that govern our society and as things change there will be people who are uncomfortable with it, That is a given fact. Things are changing and Bush will not be able to stop it unless he is able to make himself the first US dictator. I don't see that the cards are stacked in his favor.

By the way I voted for Bob Dole... Not exactly the liberal vote...

Originally posted by Xtasy94
Good posts Briguy!!! Let me make a few points. GWB isn't about banning gay union. He just doesn't want "marriage" to start carrying a different meaning. Let's face it, you who are so proud of your rotaries, would you like the piston drivers to claim they are rotary drivers? You might be offended too. Not because they're worse, but that it's just not true. And physically speaking, forget religion, could you ever get your RX8 moving if it only had 4 rotors and no casing? Could you ever assemble anything with two bolts or two nuts? Also anyone who is married heterosexually knows how much you learn about the opposite sex. If everyone were gay, there would be a nice split between men and women. Would that world ever work? NO!!! However it has worked for centuries as heterosexuals. And Democrats really need to get over their loss with Gore. He lost fair and square. Read your laws. If you don't like the Electoral College Method then change the laws before you lose. LOGIC WILL SET YOU FREE!!! :)

Who says it's not true that the definition of the word Marriage can't be used for a Man and a Man or a Girl and a Girl? Did God tell it to the people that it must be Heterosexual? I would like to know which God this is... and Why that is the only God that is possible.

A better analogy would be... If you had a car that is an RX-8.. and called yourself part of the Rotary family... yet the RX-7 people said you guys aren't good/fast enough to be considered in the same line as the rest of the Rotary. Internally ALL humans have the same feelings, and makeup... why should that give us the right to stop another human being to do whatever the heck they want when it doesn't hurt anyone.

93rd current-

Was I talking to you? You sure are defensive for someone who reportedly is able to defend himself. I didn't see any personal insults in my post, either, so I know you weren't talking about me.

I don't think we are that far apart politically or ideologically. You are a reasonable moderate independent, as am I, although my views are probably more conservative than yours.

Some on this board are not reasonably moderate OR independent, they are hardcore liberals with extreme special interests. They are the ones I like to provoke, because they are SO convinced that theirs is the only (smart) way to think or believe.

It gets "touchy-feely" when everyone around the campfire thinks the same.

discussing politics should be avoided at all costs. you're never going to change your own views and you'll certaintly never change anyone else's.
many relationships have turned sour because of it, no good ever comes out of discussing it or worse yet, participating in it.
arguing political views online should be akin to shooting one's own ass and then complaining about the pain.
with that i'm done with this thread

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
... Some on this board are not reasonably moderate OR independent, they are hardcore liberals with extreme special interests. They are the ones I like to provoke, because they are SO convinced that theirs is the only (smart) way to think or believe....

How sweet of you to think of me, doc. :p Stay tuned for my hardcore liberal special interest take on this issue... I'll post as soon as I can unwrap my arms from huggin' this tree. :D

Originally posted by Aratinga
How sweet of you to think of me, doc. :p Stay tuned for my hardcore liberal special interest take on this issue... I'll post as soon as I can unwrap my arms from huggin' this tree. :D
Hey, Nader's back in. How are you going to possibly choose?

edit: I vote for you as coolest high school chemistry teacher EVER.
Of course you don't have much competition, but hey, a compliment is a compliment. :)

Originally posted by RX8Bliss
discussing politics should be avoided at all costs. you're never going to change your own views and you'll certaintly never change anyone else's.
many relationships have turned sour because of it, no good ever comes out of discussing it or worse yet, participating in it.
arguing political views online should be akin to shooting one's own ass and then complaining about the pain.
with that i'm done with this thread
I think this is the perfect place to discuss politics. I have learned a lot from those with different views than mine. People tend to hang out (in real life) with other people with the same views, so you don't often get exposed to different viewpoints in the world. If you have these discussions with friends/family you can lose relationships, and with strangers you (or they) can lose some teeth. This is better imo.

SpeedERDoc,

I wasn't being defensive just stating the case that I believe most of us are not so "touch Feely". I do like camp fires though :p .

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I think this is the perfect place to discuss politics. I have learned a lot from those with different views than mine. People tend to hang out (in real life) with other people with the same views, so you don't often get exposed to different viewpoints in the world. If you have these discussions with friends/family you can lose relationships, and with strangers you (or they) can lose some teeth. This is better imo.

Oh my God, I actually agree with Doc on something! I was just getting ready to write that I've learned a helluva lot about how the other side thinks on lots of issues by reading these discussions. When you sift through the rants and the rhetoric there are lots of ideas that deserve serious contemplation... even if they don't succeed in making me switch my party affiliation. "Know thine enemy!"

Regarding this whole gay marriage debate: Isn't this entire argument really revolving around how we choose to define the word "MARRIAGE"? I don't think anyone here feels that homosexual couples should be denied the same rights and responsibilities granted to married heterosexual couples; the real sticking point seems to be what we call their legally-recognized relationship. I honestly don't understand what's so dang sacred about that word; in modern secular usage it simply means a committed, permanent (sort of), legally binding agreement between two people, generally based on love (or the need for money or a green card). Watch... pretty soon Dubya will want another constitutional amendment to define the word "GAY" exclusively as "happy and carefree".

Licensing of marriages is not the same as the licensing of physicians, cosmetologists, or pilots, ggreen29. Those require the licensee to demonstrate competence at a skill they intend to practice either on or in the public at large, potentially placing other innocent parties at risk if they are not sufficiently skilled. Protection of the citizenry is the underlying reason for issuing such licenses.

Marriage on the other hand has no immediate effects on anyone but the couple involved. I fail to see how having a gay or lesbian married couple on my block will have any discernible deleterious effect on my well-being.

We are sliding down a slippery slope of integrating too many conservative Judeo-Christian biases into our public laws. We have to understand that, as much as Jerry Falwell and others of his ilk hate to admit it, there are a whole bunch of American citizens who opt for "none" or "other" when checking the religion box. We cannot continue to force arbitrary religion-based restrictions onto a society that is supposedly free.

Restricting the institution of marriage only to those couples that consist of one man and one woman is every bit as wrong as restricting the institution of voting only to males or whites. Just because the "majority" of Americans believe something doesn't make it right (think civil rights for minorities); just because a law exists restricting something doesn't make it wrong (think speeding - just trying to remind myself that this is, after all, a sportscar forum ;)).

How many of you would condemn Rosa Parks for illegally taking a seat at the front of the bus? Sometimes bad laws need to be violated. Laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals are bad laws. It will be a sad day in the history of this country if Dubya's constitutional amendment passes when one giving equal rights to women failed.

edit: Regarding Nader, he'll never get my vote. He hates cars. :)

Originally posted by RX8Bliss
discussing politics should be avoided at all costs. you're never going to change your own views and you'll certaintly never change anyone else's.
many relationships have turned sour because of it, no good ever comes out of discussing it or worse yet, participating in it.
arguing political views online should be akin to shooting one's own ass and then complaining about the pain.
with that i'm done with this thread

If people didn't discuss political topics, we wouldn't have any democracy... it would be completely communism.. or even facist. I don't mind that someone has a differing view on the topic as long as it's intelligently thought out, and has a basis on facts. There has to be a reason for it.

Agreeing with Aratinga, I just don't see how gay people getting married would hurt me or anyone in any way. What is the basis for this besides "God told me so..." ???

The "will of the people" is not the sole criterion and justice is not a popularity contest. There have been any number of discriminatory laws througout American history which were backed by a solid majority of the people. Sometimes it was the Court system which rectified these laws (overturning the "will of the people").
Correct, but this country is based on the idea of majority rule with minority rights, and when judicial mullahs substitute their judgement for the will of the people, they'd better have very good reasons. And I don't see the reasoning here. There is no unequal treatment, and marriage is not a right, therefore there's no civil rights violation.

The judges have chosen to cater to a politically correct and powerful minority group. Will these judges afford the same "rights" to bigamists and polygamists? Those groups are politically irrelevant, but don't their arguements have as much (or little in my view) validity as the homosexual arguement?

Originally posted by Aratinga
We are sliding down a slippery slope of integrating too many conservative Judeo-Christian biases into our public laws. We have to understand that, as much as Jerry Falwell and others of his ilk hate to admit it, there are a whole bunch of American citizens who opt for "none" or "other" when checking the religion box. We cannot continue to force arbitrary religion-based restrictions onto a society that is supposedly free.



To tell the truth, I am not sure how I feel about this issue.
I Do feel that gay marriage is wrong, but am not sure that I want a Contstitutional Ammendment to prevent it.

However, I do believe that an individual state should be able to ban or approve gay marriages if it wants.

As far as slippery slope....that's pretty funny. Seems the slippery slope is sliding the other way to me. What type of litmus test will you apply to defining a legal marriage? Can siblings marry, for finacial reasons? What about those NAMBLA perves? Who defines what age you need to be , the states?

There are some interesting arguments here. As far as gay marriage affecting the rest of us, well I don't see the average American even noticing after all is said and done. Most people won't have to deal with it. But with medical benefits being such an issue it will help there for those who would qualify.

I am going to take a moment here and do a reality check... for the last couple of weeks all I heard on the news and in political debates had to do with "outsourcing". This is an issue that affects the average American. Why are we spending so much time talking about my god vs. your god? We should be asking why our jobs are being moved overseas.

Last year about 20,000 tax returns were completed for Americans by people in other countries. This year it is estimated that this number will jump to 150,000-200,000. The average tax return cost you to file something like $200. The average American trained tax preparer in India makes $300-400/month. I guess I can see why tax preparing for the US is quickly becoming a foreign job.

I care about my homosexual neighbors rights, protecting those rights helps protect my own. I care more about my and my homosexual neighbors jobs than I do about the gay marriage issue. Many jobs and industries are moving out of the US and we are already spending more money on the national budget than it can maintain. Also we are coming up on the Babyboomer generations retirement age. All these Babyboomers should be more worried about their social security checks than they should about how dubya and Fallwell feel about "gay marriage." It certainly was a deflecting tact on good ol' Georges side to make this such an issue.

Originally posted by Aratinga



SNIP!

Licensing of marriages is not the same as the licensing of physicians, cosmetologists, or pilots, ggreen29. Those require the licensee to demonstrate competence at a skill they intend to practice either on or in the public at large, potentially placing other innocent parties at risk if they are not sufficiently skilled. Protection of the citizenry is the underlying reason for issuing such licenses.


hmm with the divorce rate and number of single mothers and dysfunctional families as high as they are maybe we should make the couple demonstrate competence!!! hehe can you imagine a marriage permit and then later go in and pass a marriage test! haha..


so in all seriousness. (yes that was supposed to be joke, though the idea did seriously cross my mind briefly!)

So why would you care is two homosexual people decide to get married? I mean its something that most people do at one point in their lives. why should they be any different? Do they love each other? Sure I bet they do. I mean it takes a heck of a commitment to want to get married. Unless you are Britney and are in Vegas. (drum roll) so why shouldn't these people be given the same treatment as the rest of the populace? Like most of you have pointed out a gay couple would not impact me in the least.

but of course there are at least 2 sides to every story.

now looking at the other side of the story. You are a devout follower(read follower NOT bible thumper) of your church. you go to church and do all the things you can to lead your life as true as you could to the teachings of the church. You believe that you are living the best life you possibly can. Now a group of people who want to make the same kind of commitment that you did with your wife/husband. they are good people but the key thing is that they want to undergo the same vows that you undertook. However, the church you belong to states that marriage is a bond between 2 people male and female. It is a religious ceremony. It is a union of 2 souls and the union is blessed by your god or whatever. This ceremony is sacred to not only you but also to the other members of your church and family. A union of these people would then have trivialized your ceremony. This probably would not sit well with you . sure they are good people but this is your core beliefs that have just been violated! So in your mind it is not the homosexuals who are being persecuted but rather it is you! Why is it that you should have something you take to heart trivialized? You are not saying that one person is better than another. Aren't you allowed to defend your rights to keep the dignty and meaning of your marraige.

ok.. story over.. hehe..

so my problem is why does it have to involve religion, I am not certain why civil union could not be satisfactory. I mean do not associate it with marriage. heck maybe outlaw all marriage licenses and call them all civil unions. I don't care. Just don’t call an apple an orange because you want to fit in. clearly the definition of marriage. ref: OED (Oxford English dictionary) is the union between a man and a woman. Law should be blind. Just call it how it is.. an apple is an apple. Marriage should be set aside for religious ceremonies. Civil union is the laws equivalent making no distinction based upon religion race or creed.

But, and I stress the but. There need for a social moral code in laws. This is where things get tricky. It is obvious from the writers of our constitution that their beliefs in god are well incorporated into the document and basis of our government. To remove the judeo-christian ideologies would be to inherently destroy the basis of the constitution. A moral code is necessary for all proper government and of course the assurance of equal right to all people. I would have to say that the judeo-christian codes of morals and ethics are probably as good as we could get. Otherwise the next thing you would know we will be marrying sheep and goats as there is no moral code to follow. Over time some things do need to be changed such as slavery and equal rights. But there are sever not as clear lines such as abortion and the death penalty. Until there is a universal moral code deal we are going to have to deal with what we got.

Neither my wife nor I are Christians. Actually I consider myself to be an agnostic athiest and I don't know that she has given it much thought in a while. I certainly am not here to argue with anyones faith. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage that is fine. I am sure that no gays will marry each other in your church. No sanctity has been compromised there. If they want to get married in front of a Justice of the Peace or Handfasted in a Wiccan ceremony, etc., etc. then let them have it. Marriage is not just a Christian tradition and it has been around a lot longer than the Christians have. So quit thinking that Christians get to write the rules about it.

Who cares because within 3 years we will be traveling to other countries anyway to continue to work in our fields after all the jobs (besides health care) are moved away. So there won't be a need for gay marriages to be recognized here since anyone left won't be able to afford to get married.

Originally posted by ggreen29
There is no unequal treatment, and marriage is not a right, therefore there's no civil rights violation.

Uhhh, marriage IS in fact a right. Last time I checked, the good ol' U. S. of A. was a member state in the United Nations, and here's what their charter says regarding marriage:

The General Assembly, Recognizing that the family group should be strengthened because it is the basic unit of every society, and that men and women of full age have the right to marry and to found a family, that they are entitled to equal rights as to marriage and that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses, in accordance with the provisions of article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Note also that it does NOT say the marriage must be between a man and a woman. It simply states that both men and women of age have the right to marry.

I am wondering... How many people that are agnostic/atheist are oppose to Gay marriages... why they think it's bad? I'm really curious... I can understand why the people with religion would think so... since God said so, but how about the ones with no religious background.

I never said that I do not have a religious background. I just choose not be a "believer". It's an important distinction.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent

Last year about 20,000 tax returns were completed for Americans by people in other countries. This year it is estimated that this number will jump to 150,000-200,000. The average tax return cost you to file something like $200. The average American trained tax preparer in India makes $300-400/month. I guess I can see why tax preparing for the US is quickly becoming a foreign job.
I

93rdcurrent, do you have a reference for these stats? I am a CPA and my firm has started up an Indian compliance center (compliance=return prep). Most of us think its a bad idea. I'd be interested in reading the source document(s)

Thanks!

I have been meaning to post on this thread for a while now, but I have not had the time to give the subject matter the attention it deserves. Well now I do. I hope I can contribute something meaningful to this discussion. I am for gay marriage because there is no reason that compels me to think otherwise. In the rest of my post I plan to present and address the main objections to gay marriage in order to show why I think gay marriage should be legal.

Reasons against gay marriage:

Immoral / God says so
Marriage is between a man and a woman
Diminishes the value of marriage, what will marriage become
Shows approval of homosexuality
The people say so / Marriage is not a right
Civil Unions are sufficient

I believe the main reason so many people oppose gay marriage is because their religion or sense or morality considers homosexuality immoral or sinful. I fully support anyone’s right to hold and express any belief they want. That being said, this is not an adequate reason to keep homosexuals from being married. As we all know, the US legal system is based on separation of church and state in order to protect religions from legal oppression by a majority religion and to prevent citizens from having religion forced upon them. The purpose of the US legal system is not to enforce morality or religion. The laws establish and protect the freedoms of citizens; freedom is to be restricted only in order to prevent encroachment on the rights of others. Furthermore, the law should lack and does lack the authority to restrict the rights and privileges of any group of people in order to protect the tender sensibilities of others.

Another reason people give is that “marriage is between one man and one woman” and it should remain so. Those who make this claim say that marriage is defined by religious and social customs that should also remain unchanged. First, the religious and social customs that have served to define marriage have changed drastically and the concept of marriage has changed along with them. Bush stated today, that “all religions” disallow marriage between homosexuals. As far as I know this is a true statement, however, Christianity and Islam allow for polygyny. So if that is our basis for deciding what marriage should be, polygyny should be allowed as well. Moreover, marriage is not traditionally about love as so many want to claim. Marriage was originally about property, so that men did not have to worry about illegitimate children making inheritance claims and to display ownership of their wives. So even if marriage is about love now—which is doubtful—gay people, I assume, are as capable of love as straight people.

Along with the above argument, many people argue that allowing gay people to marry somehow diminishes what marriage is. I personally don’t believe that marriage can get any worse. The divorce rate is at or above 50%, an estimated 70% of men and 30% of women are unfaithful, and people go to Vegas to get married on a whim or because of a bet (Britney). In addition, it is unclear to me how gay marriage would diminish heterosexual marriage in any way. As far as I could tell my parents didn’t love each other any less or feel less “joined” after a few thousand homosexuals received marriage licenses in California. I wish I could represent this argument better, but I just don’t understand how allowing gays to marry would hurt anyone else’s marriage. Some people give a slippery slope argument along with this one claiming that if we “change” what marriage is to allow gays to do it then where will it stop. Why not let multiple people marry, people marry animals, or objects. Personally, I think this argument is ridiculous. Marriage is contract. In order to enter into a contract, an agent (since I cannot say person) must be capable or rational thought among other things. A person could never marry his dog or car (though my 8 is sexy) because a dog or car cannot consent to marriage. Now, multiple marriages are a little different because multiple people can enter into a contract. The reason it is wrong to exclude homosexuals from marriage is because it, based on irrelevant characteristics, denies them a right or privilege available to others. Put simply, some people can marry but they cannot. There is nothing wrong with keeping people from marrying numerous people because no one is allowed to do this. It is not wrongful discrimination to deny a right or privilege to all groups, it is wrong when rights or privileges are denied to people based on irrelevant group characteristics. Therefore, there is no reason to expect legalized gay marriage to lead to all types of other marriages.

Some people say that that they believe homosexuality is wrong and because of that, they cannot support gay marriage because supporting gay marriage represents acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Allowing gays to marry, however, does not condone their lifestyle. There are many legal activities contrary to my personal morality, but this does not mean I support such activities. Many people oppose pornography, alcohol usage, certain styles of clothing, and tastes in music. By no means does this mean that these people condone such activities. Even if legalizing gay marriage conveyed some sort of national encouragement of it, this is no reason to disallow gay marriage. The law is not for defining the morality of the nation so we should not ban gay marriage on these grounds.

Another argument people make is that this country is a democracy where the will of the people should be done. We all know that the will of the people does not override the rights of citizens as protected by the US Constitution. This argument is baseless. The Electoral College was invented as check to the will of the majority, and the will of the majority is not always right as evident by slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights…the list goes on. Some people then claim that discrimination is acceptable in this situation because marriage is a privilege, not a right. True marriage is a privilege, but the Constitution protects privileges as well.

The Fourteenth Amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Therefore, equal protection applies here. Nothing more needs to be said.

Lastly, people claim that civil unions give gays the same rights as marriages, so they should just accept that and leave marriage alone. In other words, they get a different institution that’s the same. With reminds me of a separate institution that’s equal. Separate-but-Equal, I’ve heard that one before. Jim Crow strikes back I see. Yes, I know that we don’t exactly segregate people based on sexual orientation in the sense that we did based on race. This, however, is a valid analogy because homosexuals should not have to settle for a different-but-equal institution. The Constitution dictates that no group is left out of any state sponsored institution, right, or privilege.

Again: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's all I have for now, but I'm sure I'll have more to say later.

-Kenneth

I thought George W's goal in life was to be baseball commissioner - and he was simply using the Presidency to get there.

John

PS I support gay marriage - heck we heterosexuals wrecked it - the gays cannot make it more of a wreck.

Kenneth --

You rock!

::::APPLAUSE::::

Ya Kenneth, well said.. I'd love to see what the other side has to say about this issue. I mean, I'm all for reasoning.. if they can adequately defend that this issue should be banned, I'd love to read it.

I wonder why heteros care so much? I tried to think of a reason why I should even care....the only thing I came up with that interests me at all is that my taxes would probably go up more if gays had the same tax benefits as married couples.

I actually support legitimizing the civil union of gays, giving them equal legal rights. My support definitely is not strong enough for me to want to pay more taxes every year or to want a president in office who would not keep our country safe, like the last Democrat we had. So I have to admit, my moral support is not going to help your cause. The country is not quite ready for full acceptance of these unions; as I posted previously, the majority of Americans are against legitimizing these unions at all, but also against making an amendment to the Constitution to forbid them. I personally think it ought to be a states' issue.

The comparison to blacks is an interesting one, and to me just shows that social change often takes a long time. A lot of acceptance of the gay lifestyle and protection of their rights has occurrred in the last 20 years, and it may take another 20-40 years for true equality to be recognized. That is humanity, the old folks have to die off before true social change occurs.

I agree with some of what the doc says, but it's too late for me to distinguish my opinions from his; I'm too tired for that. He does, however, ask an interesting question that I have been asking in regards to this issue. Why do heterosexuals care so much? The questions goes both ways. Nevermind why heterosexuals are willing to fight for gay rights; why should whites and men have fought for the rights of blacks and women. That is a rhetorical question by the way. The important question is why do some heterosexuals care so much as to be so adamantly opposed to gay marriage. It's hard for me to understand why, excepting religious reasons, some heterosexuals are so opposed to gay marriages.

more when I have time,


Kenneth

Why Hetero Sexuals care? You should simply ask why being a Human being should care... If one man with such power/influence can dictate who can marry whom... he can one day use that same power to ban something that you feel is your free right to do. We should all care on this issue... You are using the excuse that some Americans felt when they said.."Why should we enter WWII, it's not our country getting hurt." Until that day happens. Hmmm Ironically you can use this defense to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq... but he still didn't need to lie to the world that he was trying to prevent weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam or the "Terrorist" threat that was so important back during the 9/11 situation. He could have just come out and said.. "He tried to kill my daddy..." Oh wait, he did say that.

If your taxes go up, blame that on the Republicans. They are the ones giving the corrupt big businesses like Halliburton crazy tax breaks, and levying to the middle class citizens of this country. So just because you "MAY" assume that your taxes go up, they should ban gay marriage?

When you say that it takes a long time for this to change... it has been. Don't you think the last 20 years, gay people have progressed, yet not enough to even be able to marry each other that this is somewhat sad for such a progressive society? When we look at how we treated Blacks, or women in the past.. we laugh now at how silly it was for them to think it was acceptable.

My point is, I really DON'T care. Whatever happens will be OK with me. Part of me says, I should support their right to have a tax break and other legal rights. Part of me says, I pay a tax penalty for making too much, why can't they pay a tax penalty for their "alternative lifestyle." Many of their other legal interests can be protected with vehicles already available to them (durable power of attorney, etc.).

We didn't enter WW2 until WE got hurt. The atrocities against the Jews were NOT a reason to enter the war, they were only discovered AFTER the war.

My taxes are LOWER this year THANKS to the Republicans, thank you very much. If gays are afforded equal tax rights in their "marriages," ALL nongays' taxes will go up to make up the difference, but the more you make, the more they will go up.

My guess is that you are 20 years old. See how you feel in another 20 years.

edit: This whole issue is not about legal rights anyway, what they REALLY want is the societal acceptance from official legitimization of their union. Whether or not the amendment issue passes, it is going to be a while before a substantial majority of Americans gives their "approval." Social change takes time. A long time. You can't rush it. It is part of evolution. Live with it. It's nobody's fault. It is human life as we know it. You are a part of it with all your squawking and foot-stomping. But so is the 70 year old grandma in the country who is against you. She has a vote too.

Briguy,

I was watching the Money Report on NW Channel News this morning. I guess you would have to find their sources since I was quoting them. But this is just one part of the epidemic that is called outsourcing. As a mortgage loan officer I am seeing it as well. Many companies which do internet and phone only transactions are outsourcing my job. I can get people as good a deal as they can but my advertising budget isn't as high because I have a mortgage and car payments that mean I need to make more than $200-400 dollars a month.

An example of how this affects the average American is that my wife has her masters degree. She worked 2 part-time jobs. One paying $14.50/hour and the second is a teaching job at a local college. She has $70,000+ in student loans for her 6 years of education. We pay approximately $475/month on them on that education. This is where it gets bad. No one would hire her full-time because if they did they would have to pay her medical insurance. WTF! My wife worked her ass off for six years to get a masters degree and no one is willing to give her benefits. Well it just so happens that the company she works for finally recognized that she brings in approximately 50% of the clients in the local office and decided that she was a flight risk and decided to bring her on full time (almost a year and a half after her hire date). She now has benefits. If I were to join her insurance plan I would have to pay $347/month. I am in excellent health and I don't smoke. If I were to get hurt she doesn't make enough money to cover our bills on her own, but we would have to pay an arm and a leg to get me insured.

What do you think would happen if my job was moved overseas? Is this likely? You better believe it. As big corporations try to get rid of all the small brokerages such as mine, they are moving all of their loan services to central locations and then moving those centers abroad or to Mexico. As this happens ALL of the people at the US location get laid off. That usually ranges from 400-5,000 jobs at a time. And more if they get rid of other jobs. This is great if you're the CEO and your job isn't on the line because you don't have to worry so much while your pockets get more full because you are paying some poor person a fraction of what they are worth. (Quite the run-on sentence). This is what I feel the canidates should be focusing on and it is the issue that I believe Bush is trying to dodge since it was a member of his party that stated, "Americans profit from outsourcing." they were obviously talking about a select few Americans and I imagine that Bush would be one of them :mad: .

I feel stronger about this issue than the gay marriage issue, unfortunately against your side. Do you think we should pass an amendment or other law restricting outsourcing? I do not. That is capitalism, my friend. If we have the technology to allow someone in another country to do a job for cheap, and assuming they can do it as well, then I'm all for it. If they cannot do it as well, they will not be accepted. If you can't do it as cheaply, then you will not be accepted. That is capitalism.

That is part of the reason I chose to do ER. You have to make yourself indispensible at your job, and in life, or you do not have security. I would be VERY worried if I were a radiologist right now. They already read digitized films at home, how many of those docs do we really need, and could it be done for cheaper if we sent the films/pictures elsewhere? That is why so many radiologists are now learning to do invaasive procedures.

Adapt or fail. You are not guaranteed a job just because you are American.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
My point is, I really DON'T care. Whatever happens will be OK with me. Part of me says, I should support their right to have a tax break and other legal rights. Part of me says, I pay a tax penalty for making too much, why can't they pay a tax penalty for their "alternative lifestyle." Many of their other legal interests can be protected with vehicles already available to them (durable power of attorney, etc.).

We didn't enter WW2 until WE got hurt. The atrocities against the Jews were NOT a reason to enter the war, they were only discovered AFTER the war.

My taxes are LOWER this year THANKS to the Republicans, thank you very much. If gays are afforded equal tax rights in their "marriages," ALL nongays' taxes will go up to make up the difference, but the more you make, the more they will go up.

My guess is that you are 20 years old. See how you feel in another 20 years.

I'm 26 years old to be exact. I got heavily taxed this year... maybe it's because I own my own business. But see, I'm not going to ASSume why you didn't get taxed highly and instead paid very little.

Read how income tax, federal & state taxes, and how it will be effected by "GAY MARRIAGE," before you make anymore ignorant comments. It will not effect how much we are paying now... that's like saying if we let all the illegal immigrants become US citizens now so they can pay taxes, our taxes will be lowered... which it wont.

That was my point with the WW2 Analogy. People didn't care about entering the war until it happened to us. Yet that is exactly why we should care about it now... before other rights are deemed inappropriate by Bush and is banned by the constitution. We should care before things get worse to bad.

If it was trully about "heterosexuals" having to pay higher taxes, I would gladly pay that higher tax so that other human beings get the same supposed benefits the rest of the population is offered.

Correct and I agree to a point... Slave labor is cheaper and was how our capitalistic society was able to be founded. With out it we never could have had the large plantations that built our country. I would never consider going back to that system. I think it is completely wrong. Well tell me how it is different for companies like Nike and others who hire the cheapest and youngest laborers and who polute the enviroment in ways they could never do over here.

Is that the answer? Cheaper is better. Try getting some decent customeer service out of your cellphone company sometime and tell me how this works.

After careful consideration I have decided that I, too, am opposed to gay marriages. Not that any gays have asked to marry me; but ever since Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan made this a vital issue in the presidential campaign, I have felt the need to speak out.

I agree with the conservatives that gays cannot fulfill the sacred obligation of marriages, which is to procreate. And to be consistent, I believe that heterosexual marriages that prove childless after nine months should be dissolved. This would end Dole's, Buchanan's and Newt Gingrich's current marriages; but I am sure they will understand.

They are also right in arguing that gay marriages are very threatening to heterosexual marriages. If you've ever lived near a gay couple, you would know that they set a very bad example. I remember trying to be heterosexually married once in the notorious Castro district in San Francisco. My wife of the time kept comparing me very unfavorably to gay spouses. They managed to earn a living; participate in civic life; and still find the time to do the dishes, fix the sink, and even paint their houses. I kept telling her it's unnatural for a man to be so handy. Her unreasonably heightened expectations soon ended our marriage.

Another thing is that gay men who want to get legally married as opposed to just living together or, better yet, having one-night stands are clearly abnormal. I have never met a hetersexual man who was thrilled at the prospect of tying the legal knot. That's why we get stupidly drunk and destructive at darkly ritualistic pre-wedding bachelor parties.

My heterosexual friends always thought that their live-in relationships were going along just fine and suspiciously questioned why their girlfriends felt the need to rush into marriage. My experience extends to a recently overheard conversation at a coffee house in my neighborhood. A scruffy, never-employed screenwriter was panicked that the successful executive woman he was being fixed up with for a blind date would prove desperate to lure him into marriage. Heterosexual men think they can never be too careful on this issue.

Marriage is scary. Suddenly, you are legally responsible for someone else's debts, health insurance, and moods; and that person can make a claim on your income forever. Anyone who is eager to vow, in the eyes of the law, to love, honor, and cherish another in sickness and until death, has got to have a screw loose.

Unless one is in love. When heterosexual men are truly smitten, they become desperate to capture their prey before she gets away. But this wouldn't apply to gay marriages, because gay men never fall in love. All they care about is partying and sex, unlike heterosexual men, who mature as they move on in life.

You will notice that I haven't said anything about lesbians. That's because, being a heterosexual man, I'm convinced that lesbians don't really exist except in a kind of purgatory until a real man turns them around. So few of us and so little time.

So how do I explain all those gay men and lesbian women lining up to get married as soon as the opportunity presents itself? Even the recent semiofficial ceremony presided over by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown brought out dozens of gay couples, most of whom claimed to have been cohabiting happily for a long time.

The answer is that they want to taunt us heterosexuals with the subversive notion that gays can be stable and happy. It's a plot to undermine our time-honored national values and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers did not provide for gay marriages, even though surely some were gay. Conservatively speaking, at least 3% of the signers of the Constitution must have been gay, since that's the low estimate for any population sample. It was probably higher, given that they were a pretty talented bunch and wore wigs. They also never declared gays to be three-fifths of a person, which indicates a certain self-interested tolerance, if you get my drift.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers were as comfortable with hypocrisy as most politicians are today. But they forgot to write a "Don't ask, don't tell" clause into the Constitution. They also left marriage matters up to the states. Darn, and then the Supreme Court of Hawaii had to go and find that their state's Constitution may protect gay marriages. What if that ruling sticks and it turns out that thousands of gays achieve happiness in marriage? Dole is right; it could rock the very "foundation of marriage."

Worse yet, gay couples would be eligible to purchase family insurance, share health benefits, file joint tax returns, and have the right to visit a sick spouse in the hospital. The republic could fall.

Cheap labor is not slave labor. If someone else in India can do your job over the internet for less than you, then we don't need you doing it. They will be happy for the income, we will be happy for the lower price goods. You will have to adapt. I'm sorry, that is my opinion, but I don't make any rules.

If all of a sudden 20 million more people are eligible for "Married, filing jointly" status on their 1040, then everyone else's taxes will have to go up to make up for the loss in received income. Plus if that scenario ever happens, it means a Democratic president will be in office, which means that my taxes will go up for other reasons.

Read how income tax, federal & state taxes, and how it will be effected by "GAY MARRIAGE," before you make anymore ignorant comments...If it was trully about "heterosexuals" having to pay higher taxes, I would gladly pay that higher tax so that other human beings get the same supposed benefits the rest of the population is offered.

I wouldn't. Please don't call my opinions ignorant, they are EVERY BIT as valid as yours.

Marriage=procreate? Uhmmm That would nullify 50% of all marriages since people are getting married later in life with their second/third/etc etc marriages, and those people aren't procreating anymore.

oh wait nm, you were being sarcastic... wooo.. *sigh of relief* or were you?

I would prefer people take an IQ test before they have to procreate... We wouldn't have so many dumbass lazy people asking for welfare.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I wouldn't. Please don't call my opinions ignorant, they are EVERY BIT as valid as yours.

Speed.. the reason they are ignorant is because you haven't been taught that having Gay people have the right to be married will not lead to people having to pay higher taxes. Being ignorant of something isn't necessarily a negative connotation.. it merely means you weren't aware of the facts. The fact is, Taxes will not be increased because gay people are given the right to marry. Taxes were increased during both Bush's presidency than it was during Clinton's. Could it be that both Bush lead us into wars of false pretense? And that is fact.

OK, obviously YOUR opinions are the ignorant ones. :p
Bush lowered taxes, according to my 1040s. And the gulf war discussion is getting old. Don't you like the new attitude America is conveying, more of a 93rd current-like "I'll whup yo ass" as opposed to a Clintonesque "Let's not jump to conclusions here, maybe this first WTC bombing was just dilletantes, maybe they need some counseling. Let's hold hands around a campfire and talk about it."

If it were just the job I do, that may be acceptable. It's not. You fail to realize that if the middle class jobs are done away with in this country this will directly affect you. What would happen if the taxes received from the employed citizens had to be diverted to the unemployed? Let's broaden this a little since I know that you are an ER doc and at some point (unfortunately for us) we will need to see the inside of the ER. Let's say that 80% of us couldn't afford to pay for your service. We are only working part-time so we won't be able to afford the insurance to help us out. We are able to work so we don't qualify for state aid or other types. Now let's take this a little further, 10 years from now it will be the babyboomers trying to rely on social security. Do you think there will be a good unemployment system then?

As for slave labor, I think you are fooling yourself if you think that the health, safety and mental state of employees abroad are issues to the corporations doing business there. I am sure that they aren't taking liberties with their employees health and with the enviroments of the countries that are allowing them to move in. I happen to know a lot about this since before I went to college I worked for an importer and manufacturer of products and fabrics. Have you ever seen what the Boutiqued fabric process does to streams and rivers? I am sure that the people in Indonesia will be happy with what was done to their country 30 years from now.

It may not be our responsibility to govern their countries but we definitely don't need to be contributers to the problem. And yes it may not be exactly slave labor but exploitation is just that not matter what name you give it.

I'm getting out of my realm of knowledge here, but I see outsourcing sort of like prostitution. If the other countries are willing to provide the service, and deal with the long-term issues, then we can enjoy the ride while it lasts.

And YES, the middle class get SCREWED when it comes to medical benefits. Our system needs an overhaul. This issue, while overlooked by many, will DOMINATE our future, I assure you. Please comment in my new thread on the topic.

PS - didn't you like my reference to your skills 2 posts up? :)

Yes that was pretty funny and when I find my job moved overseas maybe we can help each other out. I will go work for a crime syndicate hurting people who don't pay up and I will make sure they go your way for treatment.

NOW you're becoming indispensible. :D

So do you really think we could stop outsourcing anyway? Does it really matter who is in the White House? I think this is advancement of technology making a world market for services. It does not seem right (or possible) to stop it to me. How would you do it?

Originally posted by Reeko
To tell the truth, I am not sure how I feel about this issue.
I Do feel that gay marriage is wrong, but am not sure that I want a Contstitutional Ammendment to prevent it.

However, I do believe that an individual state should be able to ban or approve gay marriages if it wants.

As far as slippery slope....that's pretty funny. Seems the slippery slope is sliding the other way to me. What type of litmus test will you apply to defining a legal marriage? Can siblings marry, for finacial reasons? What about those NAMBLA perves? Who defines what age you need to be , the states?

There are perfectly valid reasons why a lot of groups (including those you mention) are prohibited from marrying:


Siblings marrying (and procreating) creates inbreeding and horrible birth defects.
Children are not yet at sexual maturity or age of consent.
Polygamy is a tough one...though as it's practiced it generally involves children below age of consent.
Someone else got silly earlier in this debate and mentioned wanting to marry a pet; I don't even see a point in dignifying that.


But two adult men or women who want to marry...there's just no basis for denying it (short of religious prejudice). I suppose a weak argument could be made that since we cannot procreate we shouldn't be allowed to marry. But by that argument infertile straight couples should be prevented from marrying.

LOL!!!!!
Baller, you rock!!!

Speed-ER doc

Perhaps by example - it's my understanding the federal Repubician party outsourced their voice mail.

Also clearly the tax system should not look at companies outsourcing most or all of their products/service like those working within the US itself.

John

Food for thought - are the gays who were "married" in San Francisco going to try to file joint federal tax returns? I guess the IRS might have something to say about that.....

Speed ER Doc,

I'm a bit shocked.

How long have you been a doc btw? You state that you chose being a doc and specifically ER partly because it can't be outsourced.

I've followed the outsourcing trend, H1b and L1 visa issues for about 5 years now. I work in the IT industry as a software engineer btw. Five years ago I could quit my job and have another one with a raise practically by the end of the day. My point is that very little in my industry was outsourced then and it wasn't even a blip on the media radar. True manufacturing jobs were leaving (due to NAFTA) but no tech jobs. Tech jobs started leaving about 3 years ago. Amazingly we still had about 165,000 H1b visas granted at that time. So I find it hard to believe that unless you started on your education path within the last 3 years that you predicted the outsourcing trend, even down to which jobs in the medical field it would affect.

If people here like Speed ER doc think that outsourcing won't affect your life you couldn't be more wrong. It's most direct effect is on people like myself in the IT industry. I know there's many here on this forum that are like me. Basically I'm somewhat frightened for my families future. I wonder what my kids (if I have them) will do for careers in the future? Perhaps everyone can be a plumber or an ER doc. In reality though most will be service workers and live in a stagnant economy with massive unemployment.

Greenspan likes to spout his mouth off lately about outsourcing. Everyone is saying this is good for our country. I have a masters degree in computer science and an undergraduate degree in CS and Math. I write in the latest languages and am always continueing my education in my field. Tell me Mr Greenspan... What do I train for now?

None of these politicians have a clue. It's true. But the answer is not to sit on your ass and watch as the poor IT workers, research specialists, bank employees, lawyers (the latest to be hit by this trend) steadily lose there jobs. Part of our problem as a country is the selfish nature that a lot of us have.

Recently I was working for a company and a friend was leading a team of a few web coders. He was about to get a big contract and touted how he could get 30 web developers from Vietnam for $40 an hour. I tried to point out to him that there are 30 people right here willing to work for that. So part of the problem is that people simply don't understand that if we take a responsibility within ourselves to hire an American when we have a job available it would go a long way towards fixing this problem.

Hopefully enough people won't have the "I don't care" attitude. If not we are in serious trouble.

Go here if you care to learn about current legislation in the works to help curb the trend or would like to learn more about the outsourcing issue in general. Some here seem like they could use a little more education in an issue that will affect all of us.

Edit: If anyone here believes that any real jobs are being created now, you're flat wrong. Almost all of the newly created jobs are in service or construction and quite a few have gone to illegals. Meanwhile nicely paying middle class jobs leave every day. The ship is sinking. It's time to fix the leak, not try to bail water (create shitty jobs).

http://www.hireamericancitizens.org/

RotaryStalker

I'll never outsource jack...

I really don't know much about IT or that situation, but your link said there were 1 million IT folks out of work. That tells me that there are too many people trying to do IT. Perhaps IT is not the high-paying, secure job it appeared to be 10 years ago.

I chose ER for job security whatever happens in life. I did not want to be a subspecialist who was dependent on technology or specialized equipment or a big hospital. I wanted a job that I could do anywhere, even after a world-changing catastrophe. My skills will not become obsolete. If you try to get too specialized, there is always the risk of either technology eliminating your job, or someone else who will do it cheaper.

I see it like the stock market. You can put all your eggs in tech and take a chance for huge payoffs, or you can have a more versatile portfolio, make a decent return, and weather the storms.
Same with jobs. You only need so many specialists. If you are the best, you will survive.

In general, I would also say that an American who does EXCELLENT work has a better chance of keeping or getting a job than other people. People think that because they have sick days that it's OK to miss work. It is not. I have NEVER missed a shift in 10 years. We do not have sick days, sick time, sick pay. I have to be there or arrange coverage myself. I cannot "call in sick." I am always (99%) on time and ready to work. I would rather be 15 minutes early than 5 minutes late. I am a professional.

There are a lot of lazy people out there, who take advantage of things and expect things to be handed to them. Successful people despise that attitude.

I really don't know much about IT or that situation, but your link said there were 1 million IT folks out of work. That tells me that there are too many people trying to do IT

A rather banal assumption IMO.

If you don't know much then please don't comment. It sounds to me though that instead of wanting to learn more about the situation you have already made up your mind.

Here are some more facts as to why 1 million Americans don't have IT jobs they're trained for.

At least 4 million H-1B visas were certified by the INS between 1998-2001.

Employers hire foreign workers even when qualified and equally qualified Americans are available, and lay off Americans while retaining H-1Bs in the same job category -- even though the H-1B program was created solely to fill a "labor shortage" of jobs that could not be filled by American workers. (2003)

Basic math tells me right there that there are actually enough jobs for Americans. Part of the problem is that large industries lobby for legislation to allow more H1b visas when Americans are out of work who can do the job. The H1b program was designed and started at a time when there were not enough IT workers. And it is still active today. That is one part of the problem, not that there are too many IT workers it's that legislation is active which grants visas to people who are supposed to fill a job that cannot be filled. Not take one away.

America is the only developed nation that does not have protectionist legislation that provides disincentives for companies that use imported and offshore cheap foreign labor. (2003)

More easy math...

The total number of US technical jobs is around 8.5 million and we have imported around 3-4 million temporary foreign technical workers.

So you can cleary see there are plenty of jobs in the US now for the unemployed IT workers to fill. I still know many people here on the H1b program which thankfully only 65,000 new visas will be allowed this year.

If you dug into it a little more you'd see the problem is substantially different then you think.

RotaryStalker

I prefaced my comments by saying I don't know a lot about it, you can take them for what they are worth. I try to keep things simple, and look at the big picture.

I do not have a problem with foreign workers if they do a good job. We are and have always been a melting pot. My Filipino and Canadian nurses are the ones working while many of the American "entitled" workers are on their smoke breaks.

Kaliken:hmm with the divorce rate and number of single mothers and dysfunctional families as high as they are maybe we should make the couple demonstrate competence!!! hehe can you imagine a marriage permit and then later go in and pass a marriage test! haha.. A comedian whose name I can't remember said "Parenting: It's the hardest job in the world...but the easiest one to get!"

babylou:I completely and utterly disagree. This issue is very personal. If I were homosexual I would be incensed that another group wants to ban my behaviour that is private and does not remotely affect them. The bedroom is personal, marriage is public. Almost no one is trying to regulate bedroom behavior. Homosexuals and activist judges are trying to change a public institution. I am incensed that they are regularly doing this contrary to public opinion. And changing the social institution that is the primary institution for raising children affects the society immediately and directly.

Whew... I'm supposed to be grading papers (talk about a job I wish I could outsource!) but I can't resist this thread. Good stuff here, y'all. Baller, you made coffee come outta my nose. :D

Let's get one thing -- no, two things -- out of the way right now:

(1) Public opinion should have NO BEARING on whether or not a right or privilege granted routinely to one group of citizens should be denied to another. There was a time in our not so distant past when public opinion dictated that women didn't have the right to vote and blacks didn't have the right to enter a business establishment or public school. The "public" who now hold the opinion that gays don't have the right to marry (and yes, it IS a right, not a privilege) are just as close-minded, ignorant, and wrong as the segregationists and anti-suffrage folks were back then.

(2) Religious objections should have NO BEARING on a public policy decision. Not all marriages have to happen in a church, y'know. The San Francisco gay couples' ceremonies are taking place in City Hall, if I'm not mistaken. There are, of course, churches that welcome gay congregants and I'm sure some ceremonies are being performed there as well. But no one is going to force a Southern Baptist minister to perform a gay couple's ceremony. Your church won't be overrun with gay couples trying to tie the knot at your altar unless you invite them.

Whatever happened to the attitude of "live and let live"? I resent the attempts by the "Moral Majority" (in quotes because they are neither) to shove their ideas of right and wrong down my agnostic throat. If what I'm doing doesn't harm you or anyone else, why do you feel you have the duty to prevent me from doing it? Because it offends your sensibilities to even imagine it being done? Sorry. This is (or was) a free society. Let's try to keep it that way.

Oh, and why do I care? Because this is a human rights issue, and I'm a Democrat. ;)

so we are now split between gay marriages and out sourcing.. I have already said some views on Gay marriages so now a bit about outsourcing.

first off about those Visas As a recent graduate in a high technology area I can tell you that there is a very disturbing trend that I personally have noticed. There are less and less American students graduating in these sectors. I could tell you that over 50% of the people in my class were from foreign student visas most notably from Asia and the south Pacific Islands. (not that they were bad people, they were great, where else to you get to associate with so many different types of people) I can actually substantiate this claim as Scientific American ran short article about the number of advanced degrees awarded to American students in the tech sector have dropped to the lowest in over 10 years. Whereas degrees awarded to students from China, Korea, Singapore, etc have been growing at a ridiculous rate. It was a side article in last months publication.. sorry no web reference.

so not only is outsourcing becoming a problem its also that there is a lack of our own students wanting to study in these fields. I mean when half of the class is willing to go back to another country with an advanced degree and the same skill set of an American student then why would the company not want to start outsourcing? you have the same talent but at a much cheaper rate! Unfortunately that’s capitalism at work!

As I am not an expert, I would say that there must be a way to limit outsourcing but not curtail business. The markets in these asian area are turning ripe with hope and potential. It seems like a great place to start doing business. If I remember correctly a lot of this stuff is done through tariffs and stuff like that to artificially raise prices on goods for equal competition. Again this is not my area of expertise so I have no solutions. but I feel this is a problem that is most definitely more important than gay marriages.

Also Slashdot has brought up the outsourcing issue many many times so to me the topic has been worn thin..

Kaliken,

You are on the right track. One thing to think about, Americans who work pay taxes. Forget about the possible tax break of a couple hundred dollars from the gay marriages effecting the economy. Think about how it would be effected by 500,000 jobs being outsourced. Where is all that lost income going to go? I am sure that the overseas market is scrambling to get US companies to outsource.

I was watching the money report again this morning on the NW News Channel. Apparently within four years, according to Greenspan, we will either need to seriously cut social security benefits or raise the retirement age. Why you ask? Because the ratio between the working class and retirees who will rely on social security benefits is going to shift. We are headed for some hard times and it is no secret. IT jobs are at the forefront today but trust me that is not the end of it. I see a huge economy failure in this country if we don't stop exploiting countries around the world and not taking advantage of what we have here in our own.

SpeedERdoc,

I haven't missed more than 4 days of work in the last 5 years. I do take some vacation time but that is a given. I haven't even been in to see a doctor more than twice in the last 7 years. I just don't get that sick I guess. I work hard for my money and I give my clients excellent service. I am an American too. I understand what you mean about "entitlement" and as a martial artist from the time I was 10 and a father in the military I certainly learned that I was not "entitled" to a free hand out. Nor would I want it if it came along. I like working hard. And trust me I am not one of those EC's as my farther would call them. EC=Excuse Cammando. Like many people I have worked hard to attain the knowledge I have about my industry and I have spent money to learn it as well. I would like to think that the investment I have made is actually worth something in this country.

Originally posted by Aratinga
Whew... I'm supposed to be grading papers (talk about a job I wish I could outsource!) but I can't resist this thread.
See, once again, another slacking American worker! jk :D

93rd current, your attitude almost ensures your success. Maybe I'm naive, but it just seems hard for me to believe hard working educated Americans are going to have trouble making a living. It may not be what you expected, and you may have to adapt to changing times, but you will succeed.

(I love Zig Zigler, he brainwashed me in high school).

Now i will start this post off to say that i am a Christian, member of the UCC church, just to not piss many ppl off:

1. The Bible is not always right. This is a fact, not an opinion becuase it contradicts itself quite a few times. Following the reasoning displayed by a few conservatives here, if the Bible is wrong once how do we know that it isn't all wrong. I don't agree with that line of reasoning. Keep in mind that Jesus did not write the Bible and was not for the establishment of Church.

2. You can't pass legislation because God said so. Plain fact and if it comes to that in our county i will probably leave. Even if i agree with what is being passed because what if those in power have another God later.

3. The double standard held by Christian Republicans. I believe in helping ppl and believe welfare helps ppl. I c the Republicans saying i will help ppl as long as it doesn't cost me money.

There has only been one amendment so far that has restricted individual freedoms, being prohibition, and most of us know how that turned out. Next thing we know if we outlaw gay marriage the gay mafia will b controlling all the marriages ;).

A difference i see between Liberals and Conservatives:
Conservatives are more about the now while the Liberals are more about the later. Look at taxes, i want my children to be able to afford the same thing things that I have. Also Clinton tripled the counterterrorism budget (CTB) from Bush1's. Then when Bush2 came in he halved Clintons CTB until 9/11, then it became about the now and the CTB went way up.

I know that i can't vote for a president that wishes to limit UN defined personal freedoms. Bush publically said that the Freedom of Speech should be limited. I would not vote for Bush even if i thought that gays shouldn't b allowed 2 marry.

For those of you whole like good satire check out:
http://www.maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html
http://www.maddox.xmission.com/penny_drop.html
http://www.maddox.xmission.com/limits_to_freedom.html

My Filipino and Canadian nurses are the ones working while many of the American "entitled" workers are on their smoke breaks.

I know what you mean. I used to be a technical lead for database and user interface development at medium sized software company. My team was on the average 16 people when I was there. I was their manager as well as directed the architecture of those areas.

Out of my team about half were on H1bs. This was 4 years ago. It's true that more Americans smoked then my H1bs.. by about a 60/40 ratio. But the Indians spent an enormous amount of time on Indian chat forums. It got to the point with 2 of them that I had to give them written warnings. On the average they spent more time at work then the typical lazy American. But they spent so much time goofing off that their productivity was about half of my American developers. They spent quite a bit of the time discussing their salaries (they all had to make the same other wise you'd have a hissy fit) and who they were sending the money to back home (most doesn't stay here to help our economy).

Now my brother works with a French paint company which employs a lot of Chinese research scientists. He's got a million stories. Believe me, he is not a bigot at all, he's like you has his opinions about the work attitude of different cultures. They're not very flattering.

Removing an object from a colon is a definable job. The more objects removed, the better the worker. However, my industry is completely different from yours. It is not easy to manage anyone because we are not producing an exact tangable result (i.e. the pickle jar or light bulb). You define productivity by here or not here mainly, but I have to look at a much more difficult and broad ranged analysis: the actual work produced.

One more story. On my team we had an American who would home into work at 12 noon every day. We were required to be in by 10 am. He would leave at 1:30 for a 2.5 hour lunch (we speculated he was working 2 jobs) and then leave for home at around 7 pm. Why did we let such a lazy ass (smoker as well) work for us? Why did he get good raises? Because he was a hot shot and produced a hell of a lot more then the H1bs (most of them combined).

Your job is different from mine. Don't try to compare them or assume that Americans do it worse simply because in your arena the first fingers on the pickle jar are a Filipino nurse's.

RotaryStalker

It's wrong to generalize, I agree. There are lazy workers of every nationality.

And nurses do not remove rectal FBs, but that's a funny thought. :)

We really don't see much of that here, maybe in SF.....

Originally posted by ggreen29
babylou: The bedroom is personal, marriage is public.

Phooey. Many, if not most, marriages are performed in private. A church is private and as far as I know peeps attending weddings are by invitation only.

Originally posted by ggreen29
Almost no one is trying to regulate bedroom behavior. Homosexuals and activist judges are trying to change a public institution. I am incensed that they are regularly doing this contrary to public opinion. And changing the social institution that is the primary institution for raising children affects the society immediately and directly.

I got news for ya. The majority, read more than 50%, of children in the USA are raised out of wedlock. That means the primary institution for raising children is single parent households not some bullshit marriage ceremony that carries no weight. Hell even the Catholic church, which disallows divorce, created a bullshit anullment loophole.

Originally posted by Aratinga
Whew... I'm supposed to be grading papers (talk about a job I wish I could outsource!) but I can't resist this thread. Good stuff here, y'all. Baller, you made coffee come outta my nose. :D

Let's get one thing -- no, two things -- out of the way right now:

(1) Public opinion should have NO BEARING on whether or not a right or privilege granted routinely to one group of citizens should be denied to another. There was a time in our not so distant past when public opinion dictated that women didn't have the right to vote and blacks didn't have the right to enter a business establishment or public school. The "public" who now hold the opinion that gays don't have the right to marry (and yes, it IS a right, not a privilege) are just as close-minded, ignorant, and wrong as the segregationists and anti-suffrage folks were back then.

(2) Religious objections should have NO BEARING on a public policy decision. Not all marriages have to happen in a church, y'know. The San Francisco gay couples' ceremonies are taking place in City Hall, if I'm not mistaken. There are, of course, churches that welcome gay congregants and I'm sure some ceremonies are being performed there as well. But no one is going to force a Southern Baptist minister to perform a gay couple's ceremony. Your church won't be overrun with gay couples trying to tie the knot at your altar unless you invite them.

Whatever happened to the attitude of "live and let live"? I resent the attempts by the "Moral Majority" (in quotes because they are neither) to shove their ideas of right and wrong down my agnostic throat. If what I'm doing doesn't harm you or anyone else, why do you feel you have the duty to prevent me from doing it? Because it offends your sensibilities to even imagine it being done? Sorry. This is (or was) a free society. Let's try to keep it that way.

Oh, and why do I care? Because this is a human rights issue, and I'm a Democrat. ;)

Well spoken Aratinga!
This is a free society!

The Baller

It's wrong to generalize

I think you're wrong in general...

RotaryStalker

hahahaha, you really are drunk!!

I hope Kerry gets in office. If we really lived in a "majority rules" society, gore would be president today. I think of GWB as blood thirsty power hungry abuse. I hate to dis-respect someone in office but I cant stand his positions. I will agree what he did in afganisan was proper, but he crossed the line in Iraq and makes me sick to my stomach.

To quote garth brooks "nobody is free until we are free to marry who we want".

Newsome gets my respect, he is putting his political career on the line to tackle something he strongly believes in. Bush on the other hand is a tool.

I'm glad to see such an open discussion on both sides. I'd like to address a statement someone said near the beginning of this thread. The post said something along the lines that politics shouldn't be discussed. To the contrary, if anything should be discussed, politics should be. What has a greater affect on the lives of everyone in the world than politics? The only way to resolve differences is through open discussion so that we may find common ground and at least understand the views of others. The post included the idea that no progress is made through political discussion in the sense that no one ever changes opinions. This is known as reflective equilibrium. You have an opinion, argue about it, and keep the same opinion. The good thing about reflective equilibrium is that in the process of trying to offer a cogent argument in favor of your beliefs and against the beliefs of others you evaluate the strength of your convictions and the source of your reasons, be they religious, idealogical, or mere prejudices. Though your opinions may remain the same most of the time, you learn whether you're a shepard or a sheep.

So please, let's continue these types of debates as long as everyone can remain respectful as we have already shown we can be.

-Kenneth

Thank you Aratinga and Outlaws Extreme for your appreciation of my post.

I want to marry my favorite sheep Dolly and get full legal and tax benefits from it. Any of you liberal lunkheads got a problem with that?

Khoney:

As far as I'm concerned that Dolly's problem.

Liberal Lunkhead

Khoney:

Hope you're practicing safe sex.

Still a Liberal Lunkhead

Khoney:

Probably too late - sounds like you already hve SBE

Sorry

That's precisely the kind of thing I wanted to avoid. Normally, I would respond by saying,"I'm sure Dolly could do better" or something similar, but inflammatory statements like those and "liberal lunkhead" don't help anything. Yes, I'm liberal and I consider your affinity for sheep quite repulsive. It's absolutely dumb to even consider such an example because, as has been said many times before, a marriage is a contract. Only rational beings can enter contracts. So, no you can't marry Dolly. However, if you can find a sheep who is willing to spend its life with you and able to consent, then go for it. It disturbs me how some people equate two human beings marrying each other with their fantasies of bestiality.

again, saying that if you change marriage any it loses all value and man can marry sheep is like saying the Bible is wrong once (which it is) then it is always wrong. U can sanely justify marriage as a union between TWO PEOPLE.

Originally posted by kratley
That's precisely the kind of thing I wanted to avoid. Normally, I would respond by saying,"I'm sure Dolly could do better" or something similar, but inflammatory statements like those and "liberal lunkhead" don't help anything. Yes, I'm liberal and I consider your affinity for sheep quite repulsive. It's absolutely dumb to even consider such an example because, as has been said many times before, a marriage is a contract. Only rational beings can enter contracts. So, no you can't marry Dolly. However, if you can find a sheep who is willing to spend its life with you and able to consent, then go for it. It disturbs me how some people equate two human beings marrying each other with their fantasies of beastiality.

You're absolutely right - 'liberal lunkhead' was a pretty inflammatory statement, unlike the following snippet from an early post:

...fascist branch of the Republican party...


Liberals... no sense of humor [sigh]

BTW, Dolly told me to tell you it's spelled 'bestiality', not 'beastiality'.

Thank you, but I know how to spell. It's called a typo, but I guess liberals aren't perfect like all-knowing conservatives. But seriously, is the categorization of people necessary. Also, how is it that ideological terms are supposed to represent some kind of insult. I find it rather funny that instead of responding to my comment about how dumb the sheep example is, you choose to highlight the one mispelled, uncommonly used word in the post as if it represents some kind of victory for you or in some way dimishes my argument. Seriously, grow up and learn how to argue rationally instead of making ad hominem attacks.

Liberals... no sense of humor [sigh]

That was such a mature response; Dolly is one lucky sheep to score a great guy like you :) . ha ha, funny

Thanks, krapley! We look good together!

Normally I don’t argue with fools, but this has been rather entertaining. I’m amazed at khoney’s talent. Please everyone, notice how eloquently he was able to change my name to say krapley as opposed to kratley. I’d love to be able to think of first grade level insults like calling people krapley. Damn, that really hurt. I guess I’m supposed to go cry or something like that.

I believe the right to marry a sheep is in the 9th amendment actually.

Psssst, khoney ....
Dolly the Sheep actually died quite some time ago; although I have no doubt you two make a charming couple, I think it might be a good idea to drop any further reference to your relationship before this thread gets closed for degenerating into a discussion of necrophiliac bestiality. 'K? Thanks. :D

Now that's funny. - the 9th Amendment post is what I'm referring to.

Aratinga's also. See I do have a sense of humor. I find khoney hilarious also.

Originally posted by khoney
I want to marry my favorite sheep Dolly and get full legal and tax benefits from it. Any of you liberal lunkheads got a problem with that?

The ceremony was held on Olaf Wilson’s farm just 20 miles North of Boise, Idaho. The groom wore the traditional family tuxedo, said to be common around these parts, and the bride wore nothing but her snow-white wool coat, freshly sheared. Vows were exchanged, the presiding minister pronounced them man and wife, and the happy couple embraced with the first kiss of their new life together. But the sign wielding guests shouting slogans such as, ”This is very BAAAAAD”, didn’t share in the couples joy.

Mr. Wilson finally got his wish after years of arguing the importance of love over gender and species restrictions most states have on the law books. After taking his case to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Mr. Wilson was immediately contacted by Ed Hertz, the mastermind and leading attorney behind the recent wave of victories permitting same sex marriages. The case was dragged through the courts for 6 years before Hertz and Wilson got the verdict they were looking for.

“It was a blessing from heaven,” said Mr. Wilson. “I wasn’t sure I could wait that long. Shelly is a pretty traditional sheep, and, well, let’s just say it was a long wait.”

When asked what he thought of the protestors that showed up to voice their disapproval, he replied, “Obviously they haven’t found true love. I have, and I tell you what, they way I feel right now, especially when I’m looking at Shelly, I can’t imagine protesting a damn thing.”

Christian church leaders and animal rights activists kept up their vigil of disapproval in front of a solemn line of state police long after the newlyweds had disappeared inside to celebrate. As dusk fell, the large crowd became a sea of candles and low thick voices sang out choir hymnals. A few angry protestors hoping to break through the police line were quickly subdued.

“This is just too much! It’s pure evil!” screamed a woman as one of her colleagues was forced into the back of a patrol car. “God is going to rain down a plague upon us! Soon!”

Animal rights activists seemed to have a completely different approach. Rich Lenton explains. “What we believe is that the ewe in question is going to be unwillingly forced into sexual relations. She can become very nervous and agitated; it’s highly likely she’ll succumb to extreme stress. For most sheep this means sickness, loss of wool, possibly death. We believe this is a flat-out case of rape. No question.”

The Wilsons are planning to honeymoon in New Zealand, home to many of Mrs. Wilson’s realitives. They’ve decided to stay on the farm when they, and as Mr. Wilson puts it, “return and live out a happy normal life just like everyone else.”

Due to health complications, the Wilsons are looking into adoption.

The wedding picture!

Parental Advisory: This image contains scenes of exceedingly bad taste.

edit: In fact, it's so uncouth that I changed my mind and detached the image. If you must see it, PM me.

Gaaaw-leee, I leave for a cupla hours and this thread has gone all to hell. Looks like y'all need a shepherd to keep you in line.

Does anyone know if the SF newlyweds are going to try to seek "married, filing jointly" status on their 1040s? Will it work, or will it be audit city?

edit: Baller, if I had been drinking coffee, it would have come out of MY nose. That was baaaad. :)

I would imagine it would only be a problem if the IRS data files keep track of taxpayers' genders as well as their names and Social Security numbers. I know that the IRS wants any name change associated with a marriage to be reported to Social Security and a new card issued in the filer's married name.

Does the IRS ask for actual proof of a legal marriage when one's filing status changes from Single to Married? I don't remember having to provide it, but that was a long time ago.

So do ya think Rosie is after the tax break?

Originally posted by jtimbck2
Where was the "will of the people" when GWB was handed the title of President despite losing the popular vote (the very definition of the "will of the people")?

He won by electorial votes (I'm sure you know that - I don't know why you're bringing this up). That's how it works - Sorry.

Might I ask, what tax break.

There may be advantages to being married, especially regarding inheritance or other things..
But, there is no tax benefit. And, up until this year, there was a penalty.

I know that even with the changes, dual income families will still pay more than if they filed seperately due to the graduated tax system, limits on deductions, etc.
If they eliminated the joint married filing, I would save A LOT of money in taxes.

Might I suggest that Rosie and whatshername are not exactly a "dual income family."

I don't really think that Rosie and "Whatshername" are really that concerned about the "tax break". I am willing to bet that they are just happy to have had the opportunity to be able to say that they are a legally married couple. And I am willing to bet that Rosie will file as head of household.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
And I am willing to bet that Rosie will file as head of household.

I think this would have been the same if she married a guy.:D

Originally posted by HeTz
He won by electorial votes (I'm sure you know that - I don't know why you're bringing this up). That's how it works - Sorry.

Yes, but the electoral college is an anachronism; now that the U.S. population is relatively evenly spread across the country, the protection against one well-populated area determining the outcome of the election (which is the primary reason for the electoral college) is no longer necessary. I'm not a proponent of direct popular election, but I do believe the electoral college would more accurately reflect the peoples' will if the votes were distributed based on percentage in all states rather than the "all or nothing" approach most of the states take.

I saw something interesting called IFV voting that has been put in place in a few areas. What it does is make each person vote for 3 candidates in their order of preference. If a candidate gets a majority then they win. Otherwise the votes for the candidate who got the least votes are changed to whatever the people who chose him put as their 2nd preference vote, and so and so on. This eliminates spoiler candidates such as Nader and Perot.

Originally posted by babylou
Hell even the Catholic church, which disallows divorce, created a bullshit anullment loophole.

Actually, when a Catholic applies for an anullment, the Church considers the matter very carefully. After the Church accountant confirms that the check has cleared, the anullment is granted, and not one second before.....

Originally posted by jtimbck2
Yes, but the electoral college is an anachronism; now that the U.S. population is relatively evenly spread across the country, the protection against one well-populated area determining the outcome of the election (which is the primary reason for the electoral college) is no longer necessary. I'm not a proponent of direct popular election, but I do believe the electoral college would more accurately reflect the peoples' will if the votes were distributed based on percentage in all states rather than the "all or nothing" approach most of the states take.
If the electoral college did that, what would be the purpose of having them? We might as well have a direct popular election. I don't really care either way, but would suggest that you get over 2000. Bush won. And by the way, the population is NOT spread out evenly across the country, it is still concentrated on the coasts.

In 2000 Bush won 2463 counties in the US, Gore won 675 counties. Here's a map of voting by county (Bush in red):

"Doc" you do good work for a Bush lover.

The Baller

With this move he pull alot of conservative voters and church groups who do not believe in gay marriage. I personally don't care either way what the gay community does. However I do think the Major of San Fran should be locked up for allowing this kind of thing where it is illegal. Personally I think these things should be left up to the voters and state government. That way if someone doesn't like it they can move.

Funny how the Mississippi River divides us as a nation. East of the river, looking at the map, looks pretty even, blue or red. West of the map, no contest. Interesting.

There are no people there !!!! And those that are - are rural or semi-rural. Democrats win in urban areas - Repubicians in the rest - rather simple but true..Actually the American public is basically divided 50 / 50 at most issues. Sometimes 60:40 - 'never' 70:30.

John

Originally posted by RX8_GT
Democrats win in urban areas - Repubicians in the rest - rather simple but true.
John
Not in MY urban area....:D

bigger map:

Speed-ER doc:

Compare a population density map to the electoral map you posted - then see if my generalization proves true. There are significant exceptions but basically true. Chi square likely significant for my generalization.

Factor in other socio-economic factors and some generalization do hold.

John

Of course you're right. I just like to look at that map. :)

Here's yours. Note Houston looks different, but so do a few other places (Great Lakes area is noticeable).

http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/catalog/national/html/Population.htmldir/USpop1990.html

I am surprised there are not more Republican people at this forum. I thought that most people here would support Bush's new Legally Catless Car position for the EPA. ;)

I suppose that if most of these people had enough money they would move out of the big city as well. The rich countryside voted for Bush ;) . Also I bet a lot of those people in the Midwest voted for him b/c of his less strict EPA rules.

There is something unexcusable I find though. Bringing our country into further debt by using tax cuts on dividends and eliminating the Estate (Death) Tax that taxes possesions and inheritance passed on through inheritance. He claimed that he did these tax cuts for the "middle class". I can tell that any dividend tax cut will not signifcantly affect the income of the middle class. But for those who earn a lot in dividends (major shareholders of companies who just happen to be rich) it is a different story. Also the Democrats have suggested compromises on the Estate Tax position, such as no tax for estates worth less than $10 million, but the Republicans would not comply with that. Yeah, like the middle class is passing on more than $10 million to their kids. I will not vote for a President who is bankrupting our country for rich people, like they need more money.

I think this really shows who Bush is working for, the will of Big Business and the rich instead of the will of the People.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
--The Declaration of Independence

I think we need to alter it by finding a new president.

Originally posted by JimJimElf
With this move he pull alot of conservative voters and church groups who do not believe in gay marriage. I personally don't care either way what the gay community does. However I do think the Major of San Fran should be locked up for allowing this kind of thing where it is illegal. Personally I think these things should be left up to the voters and state government. That way if someone doesn't like it they can move.

While I see your point, if things were always left up to the votors, "separate but equal" would still be legal in many states.