livendive

I wonder at what proximity their marriage becomes cheapened. Do same-sex marriages in France devalue a marriage in Huntington Beach? What about those in New York? Or are they only affected by same-sex marriages in California, or Orange County, or just the City of Huntington Beach? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I acknowlged this with my very next sentence, along with my opinion that such an argument has no merit. The only people who can affect the quality or "value" of any particular marriage are the people who are party to it. Whether your neighbors cheat on each other or support and praise each other every day, your marriage is what you and your spouse make it, and those other people's actions are irrelevent. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think you are missing the point - People ACTING in their best interests (tempered by courtesy and respect for reciprocal rights of others) result in the optimized best interest of the populace in general. That has nothing to do your inference here that individualism is about People VOTING their best interests and, via legislation, FORCING everyone else to go along with it.......that's the whole 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on food issues....that's still not individualism, it's more of what we got now you're confusing the common good, with government forcing a common consensus short answer - you just can't legislate a common good on subjective issues (like social issues), and direct issues kinda work out without interference It appears the voting portion obscured what I was trying to say. You seem to have defined "common good" as "self interest of the majority", which would in fact make the 2 wolves 1 sheep example analogous. I'm arguing that your previous post on common good was a bit of a strawman, because while a majority, or maybe even plurality may be synonymous with "common" for this purpose, "self interest" is not interchangeable with "good". Popularity and morality are largely unrelated to each other. That said, I'd further argue that *if* the concept of the common good is even applicable to this argument, it'd go in exactly the opposite direction you suggest. Proponents of Proposition 8 have no claim of "common good" solely because they are more numerous. The only tangible benefits in question were restricted from the minority. The 53% who voted to assert their will on others did not benefit in any way that one could consider 'good' from a moral standpoint. Sure, they got to impose a restriction on membership in their ranks, but exclusivity is certainly no laudable demonstration of virtue. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Why would the common good be defined by the will of the majority? I'll grant that it's quite common for people to vote for whatever they think is best for them, but popularity says nothing about morality. So while a majority may believe any particular thing, and vote in favor of it, that merely makes it the common position, without regard to good or evil. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So far in this thread, you've implied gays are that way by choice, and companies prefer union over non-union labor. Any skepticism on the spherical nature of our planet? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not sure of the relevance of this. Relevance? The creation of a special class of person is what is happening. That class is to be distinguished by a "behavior". Do you think that a type of behavior is a protected right? I disagree that a special class of person is being created by this law, however I don't even need to address that. Religous practices are behaviors. If your church says you must wear a particular kind of hat, I can't discriminate against you for wearing that hat. If your church says you must marry your partner before having sex with them, then that's what you should do. Your choices on which church to attend, which hat to wear, or which consenting adult to have sex with are equally none of my business. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

In politics and the court of public opinion there is an absolute value in common sense, red face perspectives. In law, however, there is little space for it because we have to be able to predict the consequences. I may find a one year statute of limitations to be stupid as all hell. But that rule is there and a common-sense logic should have no bearing because then proceedings become arbitrary. I'm talking about applying such standard to the laws themselves, not their applicability to any individual case. So I agree that an argument of "the one year statue of limitations is stupid and should not apply to this case" would be bad. However "a one year statute of limitations is stupid and should be changed to three years" could be a completely viable argument. When the law itself is being challenged, a common sense appraisal could be one standard (among several) by which the law is evaluated. Look at the consequences and determine whether the goal is being achieved...if not, the law is probably stupid. If it's set aside as being stupid (read unconstitutional, or impossible to implement, or something like that), the legislators can try again, this time with less suck. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Good question. Is there any right that same sex couples are denied that cannot be accommodated by a civil contract? Last I checked, you couldn't *marry* by civil contract. But even disregarding that, imagine if interracial couples had to pay an attorney to draw up papers specifying paternity, spousal access in hospitals, and survival benefits, but white couples got each of those presumed by virtue of marriage. If it's more difficult or costly for one couple than another, it's not equal. I'm not sure of the relevance of this. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Do you believe that this decision will withstand a challenge at the SC? The Federal standards are defined and have been restated as to what is a "miniority" or a "class". Legal arguments notwithstanding, I believe there is also value in a common sense, "red face" perspective. Does Proposition 8 fundamentally deprive same-sex couples of one or more rights enjoyed by their heterosexual peers? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

As you say, the devil is in the details that we don't currently have available (i.e. justification). However I do have to admit being happy with at least the result. Think there's any chance of some first amendment arguments in there to go along with the fourteenth? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This. No special replacement is necessary, just do it through attrition, thereby gradually making the pieces with "In God We Trust" on them worth more than their face value. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

My carry gun is an XD-40 sub-compact, and I can hit a paper plate at a hundred yards with it. That's accurate enough for self-defense imo. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What he said. I consider myself pretty strongly agnostic, and don't typically consider the label "atheist" applicable to my suspicions. However your system would label me as atheist, and most definitely not agnostic. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'd call him idiotic first, racist second. Of course that's not an uncommon correlation. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Because it's used by many to criticize conservative politicians because they don't want religion being used as a basis for making law or for running the country. So it's going to be real interesting to watch these same people squirm now that their great Obama is proclaiming his religious faith. On the other side of that coin, I'm sure plenty of folks will bitch about this who thought Bush's faith-based charity initiatives were fine. Personally, I find the whole National Prayer whatever thing distasteful, but so long as it's accepting of multiple beliefs (i.e. only agnostic and atheists are excluded), I guess it's tolerable. With regard to allowing religous beliefs to drive policy, well, all Presidents do that, and it's why I'd like to see a viable atheist candidate. In the interim, I'll admit to some hypocrisy in this regard...if the resulting policies are acceptable to me, I'll try to ignore their inspiration. On the other hand, if I can't stand the resulting policies, I'll blame the inspiration for them, in addition to the idiot who facilitated them. Basically, if a politicians belief system drives him to promote "golden rule" kindness type policies that speak more to global human morality rather than just his particular religion, it's fine. If he uses the same belief system to restrict freedoms or promote hatred, well I consider that bad. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Actually, that only applies to some couples. Our combined tax burden will decrease by several thousand dollars a year when we marry. This is in part because couples with different incomes enjoy lower brackets when averaged together, but also because my employer's contribution to my fiance's health insurance will become tax exempt, whereas right now their contribution is considered "imputed income" and I'm taxed as if they'd paid it to me. The tax exempt status of healthcare premiums is a benefit afforded only to spouses, as defined by the federal government, thus unavailable to domestic partners. This applies to both the employees contribution, i.e. what comes out of your paychck *and the employers portion*, which most people never see, despite it usually being the bulk of the total premium. I just looked this week, and I pay significantly more for taxes on her health insurance than I pay in premiums for her health insurance. After the wedding, I'll pay zero taxes on those same premiums. If you think about it, this is pretty lame with regard to gay couples. Take two married couples, one straight, one gay. Each of them has one person that is a stay-at-home parent, or independent contractor, or for some other reason doesn't have access to affordable health coverage. And the other person in each relationship works for a reasonably modern employer who offers domestic partner benefits identical to their family plans. Being foolish to not have health insurance, the 'traditionally employed" person adds their spouse/domestic partner to their employer provided health insurance. Both couples see their premiums increased by around 50% (family policy vs employee only), and the employers sees their contribution double for each employee. All seems fair, both couples and the employer are out equal increases. The only difference is that the federal government just went "HEY! Are you providing healthcare coverage to a gay couple? We want more money for that!" To put some example numbers in, here's how it works: Employee only: $2000 annual employee contribution $6000 annual employer contribution $0 taxable income Family policy (straight): $3000 annual employee contribution $12000 annual employer contribution $0 taxable income Family policy (gay): $3000 annual employee contribution $12000 annual employer contribution $7000 taxable income Assuming a ballpark 30% tax bracket, why should this gay couple pay $2,100 more in taxes per year than a straight couple drawing the exact same income and benefits? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Leave it to the "honest lawyer" to tell it like it is. Nicely played, sir. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general? Who knows anymore...all these changes in definitions are starting to confuse me. boyfriend - girlfriend, husband - wife, marriage...it's all meaningless now... The fact that something confuses you doesn't make it meaningless. A boyfriend and girlfriend are a boy and a girl who like each other. A husband and wife are the same couple after they get a preacher and/or government to acknowledge their relationship as a 'marriage'. A boyfriend/boyfriend or husband/husband are a similar couple, but neither of them has a vajajay. The presence or lack of said vajajay cannot necessarily be determined by the clothes that person wears, but then, why would you care whether they have one, unless you're hoping they'll have sex with you? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Talk about stretching semantics, eh? How so? Blues, Dave Ok...I'm sure it'd be more meaningful to you if you heard it coming from the professors mouth... Kallend: Last I checked, Kallend's employer didn't even offer any liberal arts options, so his job description is moot on this point. While I'll grant that the word gay was adopted to mean something completely different than it did previously, I disagree about the word marriage. Same-sex marriages no more redefine the word than interracial marriages did around the middle of the last century. Why should this or this meet the definition, but if there were a surgery in the first, or not a surgery in the second, suddenly these marriages wouldn't meet the definition? The nature of the relationships and word which describes it is unaffected by the presence or lack of a penis. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Talk about stretching semantics, eh? How so? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not sure how to reconcile your statement that the federal government shouldn't authorize gay marriages, but also complicates matters by prohibiting them. I'm of the opinion that the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. If your spouse triggers any particular requirement or benefit, they should do so regardless of your/their gender. In a perfect world, I don't think the federal government should even pay attention to marital status. Single people and married people should pay the same taxes, enjoy the same benefits, and have the same rights. However, I've been convinced by folks here (yourself included), that this is not a state of affairs we could implement any time soon. My second choice would be to treat all marriages equally, regardless of the gender of each party. To do otherwise seems to me to be a form of discrimination at odds with our nation's principle of equality.. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Didn't you just say Or was that just "semantics" too? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Literally lol - I can honestly say that I haven't previously seen the "pshaw, semantics" argument used for completely opposite statements. "Yes...No...same same" Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Holy years ago! The first thing I did on this post was check when it was posted, expecting 6+ years ago. Wednesday nights did used to be pretty funny. Has anyone resumed the duty of randomly booting people? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So our state senate passed a bill yesterday legalizing gay marriage in the state. The House is expected to follow suit next week (and is the easier of the two hurdles) and the governor has already said she'll sign it. Good news, in my opinion. My girlfriend and I became domestic partners a couple of years ago, and we're marrying this fall. I'm excited about that, but have also felt lucky that we're one of those few domestic partnerships for whom marriage is even an option and I felt bad for those who couldn't take this step. Today I'm quite happy for all the other folks in my state who will soon be able to marry their partner. Washington will be the 7th state to legalize gay marriage. How many will it take for the feds to step up and take notice? 25? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)