Sore Losers
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Yeah, I'm all for civil unions. And I personally think that's a great solution. It should be a question of rights, not symantics. And that would guarantee rights.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
It should be a question of rights, not symantics. And that would guarantee rights.
Actually, it wouldn't. If there are two paths enshrined in law, then there are two classes of citizens. However, civil unions are the solution if government gets out of the marriage business. Tell those who want to define marriage as a religious activity to have at it. However, if they want the rights guaranteed by society to stable couple, then they need to go down to city hall and register their civil union since their marriage certificate is just so much paper and carries no weight legally.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
bulg wrote:
If it was to be put to a vote, they should never have passed legislation beforehand..
The didn't. The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws, and that same court will likely overturn this constitutional amendment as being "destructive of the constitution"
Rob Graham wrote:
The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws,
Actually, the supreme court decision was based on prior law. The nondiscrimination clause in the California constitution. And the judges who gave it the initial go ahead in the appellate court were conservative.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
You meant the Church of Scientology right? Or is it the Church of Flying Spegehtti Monster?
No.
-
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
You meant the Church of Scientology right? Or is it the Church of Flying Spegehtti Monster?
A Wong wrote:
You meant the Church of Scientology right? Or is it the Church of Flying Spegehtti Monster?
Both. Once marriage stops having any legal standing but becomes a religious rite - like Communion or a Beltane orgy - it can be whatever one your little heart desires. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
It should be a question of rights, not symantics. And that would guarantee rights.
Actually, it wouldn't. If there are two paths enshrined in law, then there are two classes of citizens. However, civil unions are the solution if government gets out of the marriage business. Tell those who want to define marriage as a religious activity to have at it. However, if they want the rights guaranteed by society to stable couple, then they need to go down to city hall and register their civil union since their marriage certificate is just so much paper and carries no weight legally.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Tim Craig wrote:
then there are two classes of citizens
You mean two classes of legal unions for citizens. What would be the problem with that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The supposed legallity is from a California Supreme Court decision, not prior laws,
Actually, the supreme court decision was based on prior law. The nondiscrimination clause in the California constitution. And the judges who gave it the initial go ahead in the appellate court were conservative.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
I think the whole thing is a silly argument. Like Jon, I think we should drop "marriage" from the legal lexicon, and extend "civil union" with a detailed description of the obligations and privileges of that civil contractual agreement to any two people who wish to enter into it. I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved. I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
then there are two classes of citizens
You mean two classes of legal unions for citizens. What would be the problem with that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
What would be the problem with that?
As soon as you have two different classes of legal union, you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well. The only excuse for having two different legal unions is to promote discrimination. It should be either just a church thing, or just a legal thing. I see nothing wrong with separating the concepts: no church can grant the legal state, no government the religious state.
-
I think the whole thing is a silly argument. Like Jon, I think we should drop "marriage" from the legal lexicon, and extend "civil union" with a detailed description of the obligations and privileges of that civil contractual agreement to any two people who wish to enter into it. I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved. I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
Rob Graham wrote:
I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved.
Betcha a dollar that the minute this was enacted we'd have a group of 3+ people screaming discrimination. Probably ex-communicated Mormons... :doh:
-
BoneSoft wrote:
What would be the problem with that?
As soon as you have two different classes of legal union, you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well. The only excuse for having two different legal unions is to promote discrimination. It should be either just a church thing, or just a legal thing. I see nothing wrong with separating the concepts: no church can grant the legal state, no government the religious state.
Rob Graham wrote:
you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility. I don't see anything wrong with seperating them either. Which would amount to changing the text on a marriage license to say "Civil Union".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Proposition 8 has some truely sore losers.
I agree. I don't care much about the whole thing, but I do wish gay couples (especially those that have been in committed relationships for many years) would be allowed to form civil unions. Unfortunately only a handful of states have civil unions. Here's[^] more on that.
"When you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." -- John McCain in 2000, on his vote against lowering the top tax rate from 39% to Bush's proposed 35%.
I thought they already had civil unions in CA.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
What would be the problem with that?
As soon as you have two different classes of legal union, you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well. The only excuse for having two different legal unions is to promote discrimination. It should be either just a church thing, or just a legal thing. I see nothing wrong with separating the concepts: no church can grant the legal state, no government the religious state.
We have the "married" and the "unmarried". I think those are already 2 different classes. What we have going on is a redefinition of a thousands of years old institution. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it always has been.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved.
Betcha a dollar that the minute this was enacted we'd have a group of 3+ people screaming discrimination. Probably ex-communicated Mormons... :doh:
Or some farmer and his chicken.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I thought they already had civil unions in CA.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Jason Henderson wrote:
I thought they already had civil unions in CA.
It's not about "civil unions," and it's not even about marriage (except in as far as there are people wanting to destroy marriage), and it's certainly not about equal rights (which they've had forever, in any event). It's about special privileges. It's about using governmental compulsion to force everyone else to approve of them.
-
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election. Mostly because I feel like the country as a whole will suffer for his policies. I also recognize that this is all opinion on my part, and that time will tell if he was the better choice. But these people[^]... Proposition 8 has some truely sore losers.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
So they want their rights, but they want to take away the rights of others. Activism is a good thing until you take it too far and gays are pushing this thing way too far. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
-
Or some farmer and his chicken.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
:laugh: Reading that, reminded me of the "Chicken Lover" episode of South Park.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
:laugh: Reading that, reminded me of the "Chicken Lover" episode of South Park.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
I don't remember seeing that one. But I laughed my ass off yesterday when I saw the one where Randy's on the Wheel of Fortune[^]. I'll have to go find Chicken Lover.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I don't remember seeing that one. But I laughed my ass off yesterday when I saw the one where Randy's on the Wheel of Fortune[^]. I'll have to go find Chicken Lover.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Here is the wiki for the episode[^]...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
I agree and would even take it one step further. The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.