There WAS some good news for Republicans yesterday

[TheAnvil 0]

MCRI passed in Michigan...racial discrimination by the state has become illegal, despite the best efforts of many leftists! Whoohoooo! Now if only the rest of the nation would follow the lead of MI and CA...

Also, several states voted to curb eminent domain abuses...very nice...again, I hope the rest of the nation follows suit.

Oh well. Truth be told, racial discrimination for collegiate admission or employment doesn't really affect too many people, but it is quite infuriating when it does occur. Kudos for MI for making it unconstitutional.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

As I pointed out in another thread, the Middle really won.

The extremes on both sides got trimmed back. This was seen in many of the referendum questions and also the fact that it was (usually) the more centrist Democrats who got into power.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

Yup... Michigan done good on that one!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

I heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out?

It passed here in VA. Pretty lame if you ask me. Most people who I heard interviewed (and those doing the interviewing) broke down the debate between "do you support gay marriage" or "do you want marriage to be only between a man and a woman" when, for me, the real question was "should our Constitution be amended to deal with this issue". I say resoundingly "NO". Constitutions are for spelling out what the government can't do, not what the people can't do. Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too. Personally I think that the real reason that it was brought up was to get more of the religious right to the polls. Doesn't matter anymore.
Here's our new logo:
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=790

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too.

And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out?

7 out of 8 states told them to stick it up their ass.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too.

And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs?

Being able to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner for one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too.

And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs?

Being able to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner for one.

Why should that right be taken away from the partner's family? You don't want to make the committment to that person for life, but you want to have the ability to make life and death decisions for them?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

I heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out?

7 out of 8 states told them to stick it up their ass.

so to speak.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I heard several states had measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot. How'd those turn out?

7 out of 8 states told them to stick it up their ass.

By them are you talking about proponents of gay marriage or those intolerant, bigotted, narrow-minded, uptight, fascist baaahstads?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too.

And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs?

The same as those couples who have the blessing of a church on their relationship.

Marriage is a relious institution, and therefore should remain outside the domain of governmental intrusion.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Why should that right be taken away from the partner's family? You don't want to make the committment to that person for life, but you want to have the ability to make life and death decisions for them?

And if the incapacitated person has no other family than their live in partner.........? Already the ban has caused problems for victims of domestic violence in Ohio. Victims can't seek protective orders.
What we're talking about are the unintended consequences.

The proponents say "it is not intended to prohibit business partnership agreements, medical directives, joint bank accounts or any other privileges not exclusive to the institution of marriage.

"The amendment says:
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a
legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the
design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its
political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status
to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Pretty straight forward. This amendment won't break up gay and lesbian couples but will only make homophobes feel better and the unintended consequences will hurt those who were not the target.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too.

And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs?

Being able to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner for one.

Why should that right be taken away from the partner's family? You don't want to make the committment to that person for life, but you want to have the ability to make life and death decisions for them?

I dont need a paper from the either the government or a sect to tell me if I have made a life long commitment to a person.



PS: I see the complete ban on abortion (even in cases of incest or rape) got defeated too in SD (I think it was SD anyways...)

Remster

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Besides that, the wording of the amendment is going to screw over non-married cohabitating heterosexuals too.

And just what advantages should those people be getting, outside of a break on rental costs?

The same as those couples who have the blessing of a church on their relationship.

Marriage is a relious institution, and therefore should remain outside the domain of governmental intrusion.

Blues,
Dave

Religious institution? When did judges, justices of the peace and ship captains become members of the clergy?

Like it or not, marriage IS a legal concept.

As it is right now, I see people wanting the advantages (tax breaks, insurance, inheritance) without having to risk the disadvantages (divorce). Take away those advantages and watch the uproar over it suddenly die.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Religious institution? When did judges, justices of the peace and ship captains become members of the clergy?

Like it or not, marriage IS a legal concept.

As it is right now, I see people wanting the advantages (tax breaks, insurance, inheritance) without having to risk the disadvantages (divorce). Take away those advantages and watch the uproar over it suddenly die.

OK, I'll compromise and say that marriage is a religious institution that's become entwined in our legal system. But it is still primarily religious in nature...why else would the majority of them happen in churches and/or be presided over by clergy?

I *totally* agree with the sentence I bolded. I think the best thing would be for our government to step completely out of marriage. No recognition of what is or isn't a marriage, no tax breaks, inheritance breaks, divorce procedures...no MENTION of "marriage" in federal law. Make it so those people who wish to enter into marriage can enter into a legally binding contract that can be adjudicated by the courts just like business contracts. Similarly, people could go through a marriage ceremony without such a contract.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

I don't see any way that you can execute a contract for another person (agreeing for medical care, etc) without legal standing.

The only way I could see that working would possibly be a medical power of attorney or some sort of living will, and even then I don't know - I've not looked into it that closely.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why should that right be taken away from the partner's family? You don't want to make the committment to that person for life, but you want to have the ability to make life and death decisions for them?

I dont need a paper from the either the government or a sect to tell me if I have made a life long commitment to a person.

[mnealtx 0]

It would certainly change the texture of the argument, wouldn't it? Opens up a WHOLE nother can of worms, though.

Child custody in the event of death - who does the child go to? The mother's family? The father's family? The new boyfriend's family?

Separation - again, who does the child go with?

Inheritance - again, who inherits? The kids? The boyfriend/girlfriend that was with them for 20 years until they broke up last year? The new boyfriend/girlfriend that's living with them now?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Remster 30]

Quote

you're going to have to jump through the hoops.

I see no reason why this would be required.

Most of Canada recognizes Cummon Law union after x years of living together (x varies in some Provinces, in Quebec it's 2 if memory serves me right). In fact, its more then just recognition, its a matter of fact: you live with someone for 2 years, you're that person's partner.

Remster

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

you're going to have to jump through the hoops.

I see no reason why this would be required.

Most of Canada recognizes Cummon Law union after x years of living together (x varies in some Provinces, in Quebec it's 2 if memory serves me right). In fact, its more then just recognition, its a matter of fact: you live with someone for 2 years, you're that person's partner.

There's similar laws in the States, as well. I think the salient point is that people are wanting official recognition for their status, and it isn't happening. As I said, they want the advantages without the downside.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Child custody in the event of death - who does the child go to? The mother's family? The father's family? The new boyfriend's family?

First to the surviving parent. If there isn't one or they are not suitable, then it goes to the family who makes the best argument for custody (i.e. appears able to provide the best home environment). Shared custody is also a possibility. Why would the process change if there were no legal recognition of marriage?

Quote

Separation - again, who does the child go with?

The courts already have to deal with this issue with unmarried parents. The process is exactly the same as for divorcees. I see no reason for it to change.

Quote

Inheritance - again, who inherits? The kids? The boyfriend/girlfriend that was with them for 20 years until they broke up last year? The new boyfriend/girlfriend that's living with them now?

In the absence of a will, the state inherits everything. Pensions had better be directed to a specific survivor(s) lest they be forfeit. Alternately, what happens to the estate of an unmarried/widowed person today?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In the absence of a will, the state inherits everything.

Huh?? Not to my recollection...although it's been quite a while since Mom died. The state WAS involved, but did NOT inherit - again, at least not to my recollection.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

In the absence of a will, the state inherits everything.

Huh?? Not to my recollection...although it's been quite a while since Mom died. The state WAS involved, but did NOT inherit - again, at least not to my recollection.

I think he was probably talking about cases where there are no legal heirs... which is relevant to the issue of gay marriage.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In the absence of a will, the state inherits everything.

Huh?? Not to my recollection...although it's been quite a while since Mom died. The state WAS involved, but did NOT inherit - again, at least not to my recollection.

I think he was probably talking about cases where there are no legal heirs... which is relevant to the issue of gay marriage.

In the case of a childless person dying intestate, I agree - the state would get everything. Still comes back down to all the laws...

You're incorrect in your assumption, however - gay couples CAN conceive/adopt... and tend to be better parents than a lot of "straight" couples I've known.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706