SURPRISE!

[DanG 1]

Well, in my mind and in the United States Supreme Court, too.

- Dan G

[okalb 104]

rushmc

Marriage is not a right
Not for a man and woman or for same sex couples
I do not feel the Constitution has anything to do with this
But the SC disagrees (agrees with you)

I agree that marriage itself is not defined in the constitution, but equal protection under the law is. As long as we afford certain rights/benefits/privileges to one group of people, we can't discriminate. It makes no difference if that is regarding a marriage, the ability to buy beer on Sunday, or any other law. It MUST be applied equally to all. You can't make a law that singles out a certain classification of people.

As I said, I agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, but the fact of the matter is that they are. As long as they are, then the laws must be applied equally to everyone regardless of race, creed, color or sexual preference.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[rushmc 23]

Equal protection under the law has been bastardized much like the separation of church and state clause

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[okalb 104]

rushmc

Equal protection under the law has been bastardized much like the separation of church and state clause

I am not sure what you mean by that. If any rights/privileges/benefits are granted, they must be granted equally to all citizens. I don't see any ambiguity there. It is pretty straightforward.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[normiss 905]

You just don't understand his discussion technique O.

What you said is thankfully what the majority of the country as well as the Supremes think.
So we recognize all marriages the same.

[ryoder 1,590]

rushmc

A recognized civil union would cover all you have listed

Exactly. The govt doesn't give a rats ass about the religious aspects of marriage, just the civil union aspects. So it took the simple expedient step of recognizing the marriage as the creation of a civil union, using the administration of marriage licenses to record when they occurred.

But then when the govt extends civil-union/marriage to biracial or gay partners, the ultra-religious throw shitfits, oblivious to the fact the govt already made a change to the practice of marriage when it began requiring a license.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rushmc 23]

ryoder

***A recognized civil union would cover all you have listed

Exactly. The govt doesn't give a rats ass about the religious aspects of marriage, just the civil union aspects. So it took the simple expedient step of recognizing the marriage as the creation of a civil union, using the administration of marriage licenses to record when they occurred.

But then when the govt extends civil-union/marriage to biracial or gay partners, the ultra-religious throw shitfits, oblivious to the fact the govt already made a change to the practice of marriage when it began requiring a license.

I am not ultra-religious and I am not throwing a shit fit and I still disagree with the ruling

But I am sure that is not the way you view this....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

Hi rush,

Quote

Power of attorney can be written to cover everything that is granted via marriage

Do you simply not understand things?

No Power of Attorney can grant survivorship benefits for a pension. As merely one example.


Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

rushmc

******A recognized civil union would cover all you have listed

Exactly. The govt doesn't give a rats ass about the religious aspects of marriage, just the civil union aspects. So it took the simple expedient step of recognizing the marriage as the creation of a civil union, using the administration of marriage licenses to record when they occurred.

But then when the govt extends civil-union/marriage to biracial or gay partners, the ultra-religious throw shitfits, oblivious to the fact the govt already made a change to the practice of marriage when it began requiring a license.

I am not ultra-religious and I am not throwing a shit fit and I still disagree with the ruling

But I am sure that is not the way you view this....

If it was up to me, every law referencing "marriage" would be changed to "civil union", just to make it clear to the populace that the govt has no interest in their religion. It would change nothing legally.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

Power of attorney can be written to cover everything that is granted via marriage

Do you simply not understand things?

No Power of Attorney can grant survivorship benefits for a pension. As merely one example.


Jerry Baumchen

and as I did stated it can be handled under the policy or program

Why don't you understand anything!

sheesh

(like how I got the little pot shot in like you did?)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

ryoder

*********A recognized civil union would cover all you have listed

Exactly. The govt doesn't give a rats ass about the religious aspects of marriage, just the civil union aspects. So it took the simple expedient step of recognizing the marriage as the creation of a civil union, using the administration of marriage licenses to record when they occurred.

But then when the govt extends civil-union/marriage to biracial or gay partners, the ultra-religious throw shitfits, oblivious to the fact the govt already made a change to the practice of marriage when it began requiring a license.

I am not ultra-religious and I am not throwing a shit fit and I still disagree with the ruling

But I am sure that is not the way you view this....

If it was up to me, every law referencing "marriage" would be changed to "civil union", just to make it clear to the populace that the govt has no interest in their religion. It would change nothing legally.

Agreed

then those who wanted to do so could get married in their church!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 905]

In now is it easily changed in the way laws and courts view relationships.
As continues to be pointed out here, there are some things that are not legally binding or qualified without a legally recognized marriage.
Which is also why a legally recognized divorce is equally as important.

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

Hi rush,

Quote

and as I did stated it can be handled under the policy or program

Let me repeat: Do you simply not understand things?

Until recently, no gay couple could have survivorship benefits as regards a federal pension.

I would guess that makes your above statement wrong.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) As one on a federal pension, I know a little more about those things than Joe Average.

[ryoder 1,590]

normiss

In now is it easily changed in the way laws and courts view relationships.
As continues to be pointed out here, there are some things that are not legally binding or qualified without a legally recognized marriage.
Which is also why a legally recognized divorce is equally as important.

There is already the legal principle of Dissolution of Civil Union.
Or for Tammy Wynette fans: D-i-s-s-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-of-C-i-v-i-l-U-n-i-on

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 905]

Is a dissolution still time based?
I thought if the union was longer than a year that was no longer possible.

[rehmwa 2]

ryoder

If it was up to me, every law referencing "marriage" would be changed to "civil union", just to make it clear to the populace that the govt has no interest in their religion. It would change nothing legally.

This ^


yet still - it would grant privileges to people that partner up that are not also granted to single people. Unequal treatment under the law. We are a nation of individuals. yet we try to create favoritism laws for people that want to partner up. it should not be the government's place to even be in this at all in today's world. It's not like we are trying to artificially get people to repopulate to push the wild frontier.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ryoder 1,590]

normiss

Is a dissolution still time based?
I thought if the union was longer than a year that was no longer possible.

I expect that can vary by state.
In CO it looks to be the same as a divorce: http://www.denverdivorceattorneyteam.com/dissolution-civil-union/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 3,132]

>Agreed on the first part
>Second Marriage is not a right

It sure is. Refer to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[billvon 3,132]

>If it was up to me, every law referencing "marriage" would be changed to
>"civil union", just to make it clear to the populace that the govt has no interest
>in their religion. It would change nothing legally.

That works. The work would be hard to justify (other than "have to make the bigots happy") but it would indeed resolve a lot of the fighting going on now over who's allowed to marry who.

[gowlerk 2,284]

Quote

and as I did stated it can be handled under the policy or program

It is handled under policy/program already. You are correct. The policy is called "equal rights", the program is called "marriage". There really is no debate anymore. It's been settled.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

>Agreed on the first part
>Second Marriage is not a right

It sure is. Refer to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Or Warren in the Loving v Virginia ruling:

Quote

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 905]

??
I thought we were discussing gay marriage specifically here.
Kim did say if it were male and female interracial she would issue a license.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

normiss

??
I thought we were discussing gay marriage specifically here.
Kim did say if it were male and female interracial she would issue a license.

So she's only prejudiced against gays. The bible also forbids "inter-tribal" marriages too, doesn't it?

Again, kind of funny how she picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow.

I used the quote from the Loving v Virginia decision to address the issue of marriage being a right. Man-Woman, Same sex, inter-racial, inter-faith, even inter-ethicity (how long ago was the idea of a "nice Irish girl" marrying an Italian guy totally unfathomable?).

Doesn't matter who wants to marry whom. As long as both are consenting adults (or at least minors old enough and with parental permission, depending on state laws), then they have the right to marry. Or at least should have.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,175]

SkyDekker

***I am talking about (with you anyway) your marriage comments.

Did you hear her story or interview regarding that topic?

No, nor am I in any way interested what she has to say about marriage. Nor does it matter to the issue at hand....which is her doing her job. How she feels about gay marriage has nothing to do with that,

(The rest is just irony. Like Keith Richards discussing healthy living)

If you are lucky enough to reach 71 and still be able to perform a 2 hour set before tens of thousands of paying fans, your simile might have some relevance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

rushmc

*********>She should have followed the order as I stated before
>But that does not make her a bigot IMO

Correct. Failing to obey a court order merely makes her a criminal. Her belief that gays do not deserve the same rights as everyone else is what makes her a bigot.

Agreed on the first part
Second
Marriage is not a right

Marriage comes with rights.

I can agree with that
But marriage is not a requirement for those rights

Not all the inalienable rights possessed by humans are listed in the US Constitution (as amended). We have a bunch of rights just by virtue of being born.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.