unbillievable Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 There are other legal benefits outside taxes. Property ownership, inheritance...and one of the big motivators for gay marriage has been medical. Practices at the start of the AIDS epidemic, where long-term partners could be barred from seeing a dying partner by family who'd been estranged for 20 years, are a significant and mostly forgotten issue. The seperation between church and state SHOULD put neither above the other. Gay marriage just may be the donnybrook that destroys that equilibrium. Be careful what some wish for. We are the land of good intentions and unintended consequences! Unfortunately, both sides do not know how to moderate. There is absolutely no compromise w/this debate. One side wants recognition and equality while the other side treats it as a sin akin to murder. How the heck can this resolve itself? If all they wanted were equal rights, than civil unions would have been enough. It's moved passed that. The debate is ultimately about forcing the Church to accept the Government's decision, because it's solely about recognition at this point. They want their abnormal behavior to be treated normally; a task that will take a complete culture change over a generation (or more) of propaganda to achieve. it's akin to the "Free the Nipple" campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 If all they wanted were equal rights, than civil unions would have been enough. It's moved passed that. The debate is ultimately about forcing the Church to accept the Government's decision, because it's solely about recognition at this point. They want their abnormal behavior to be treated normally; a task that will take a complete culture change over a generation (or more) of propaganda to achieve. it's akin to the "Free the Nipple" campaign. I don't even know how to respond to this... other than to shake my head and hope it's sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 If all they wanted were equal rights, than civil unions would have been enough. It's moved passed that. No, they wouldn't. That's what I thought, but John Adams pointed out that "civil unions" legally aren't marriage, hence can't provide the same rights (I'm not going in to details, look up his post.) You're not entirely wrong about the propaganda aspect of it (you're wrong to call it propaganda, it's more just biased reporting. But if the coverage weren't slanted, we wouldn't know about some flunky apparatchik in East Bum!@#$ achieving minor celebrity in being jailed for contempt.) But legally...do some research on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 I'm personally for gay marriage. Those sodomites should have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted September 6, 2015 Author Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) So = sounds like this board would approve of say - maybe this woman was Islamic instead of Christian - and should would only issue marriage licenses if they followed Sharia law....or an Islamic judge doing the same...or a Jewish judge not following sentencing guidelines but going old testament....of an Islamic policeman....or if I held public office and my "religion" said......and please spare me that BO is not following immigration laws - 2 wrongs don't make a right Edited September 6, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 So = sounds like this board would approve of say - maybe this woman was Islamic instead of Christian - and should would only issue marriage licenses if they followed Sharia law....or an Islamic judge doing the same...or a Jewish judge not following sentencing guidelines but going old testament....of an Islamic policeman....or if I held public office and my "religion" said......and please spare me that BO is not following immigration laws - 2 wrongs don't make a right How exactly are you drawing this conclusion about "this board"? How are you defining "this board"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 So = sounds like this board would approve of say - maybe this woman was Islamic instead of Christian - and should would only issue marriage licenses if they followed Sharia law....or an Islamic judge doing the same...or a Jewish judge not following sentencing guidelines but going old testament....of an Islamic policeman....or if I held public office and my "religion" said......and please spare me that BO is not following immigration laws - 2 wrongs don't make a right Little early on a Sunday morning to be drunk off your ass, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 More updates: A Tennessee judge is refusing to grant a divorce between a man a woman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/ The judge's legal opinion is basically this: Tennessee previously had laws regarding marriage (between one man and one woman). These laws were rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court decision. With the Supreme Court decision, the Federal Government has now "set the law" regarding marriage and states can't have their own marriage laws. Tennessee currently has laws regarding divorce, but divorce laws vary from state to state. For example, in South Dakota, a marriage partner cannot be forced to grant a divorce from their other partner, even if the other partner has no interest in getting back together; while in California, a person can get a divorce in this matter. Since the Supreme Court has now "set the law" regarding marriage, the Federal Government now has to "set the law" regarding "what is not a marriage". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted September 6, 2015 Author Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Little early on a Sunday morning to be drunk off your ass, isn't it?As usual...you deflect...would your comments be the same if the woman were Islamic? Edited September 6, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 As usual...you deflect...would your comments be the same if the woman were Islamic? That's not deflecting. And you don't even know what my comments are in this case. I won't answer until you actually read the damn thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Should an Islamic caterer have to provide and prepare pork items for a gay couple who are infidels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Should an Islamic caterer have to provide and prepare pork items for a gay couple who are infidels? is the pork bacon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 is the pork bacon? The only pork 3rd enjoys is pork tartare. Can't you tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 The only pork 3rd enjoys is pork tartare. Can't you tell? You know, when I first saw this thread I thought it was about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) You know, when I first saw this thread I thought it was about you. Dude... I am one of the few in gov't that actually keeps business right-side up. We were built for 6 million. In 50 years we haven't even scratched spending 60 million. A 60 day closure now costs the economy, business 18 million. I guess you aren't good @ math... Must be too much raw pork you've been swallowing. Edited September 6, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Dude... I am one of the few in gov't that actually keeps business right-side up. We were built for 6 million. In 50 years we haven't even scratched spending 60 million. A 60 day closure now costs the economy, business 18 million. I guess you aren't good @ math... Must be too much raw pork you've been swallowing. What does all this have to do with you getting paid for not working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Is this public sector employee a member of a Union? If so, why isn't the Union out front defending their member? If the Teachers Union can get child molesters put in the "rubber room" with full pay and benefits, why can't this workers Union do something similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Is this public sector employee a member of a Union? If so, why isn't the Union out front defending their member? If the Teachers Union can get child molesters put in the "rubber room" with full pay and benefits, why can't this workers Union do something similar? Elected officials aren't usually unionized (I actually know of no case in which they are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 What does all this have to do with you getting paid for not working? My work is very easy to keep track of and a report of it is all open to the public under the FoIA. My work is directly tied into how much I move. Like today, I moved +100,000 dollars worth of business. I also made sure 36 million gallons of water was properly allocated. The work I do is very quantitatively expressed, it's not your typical gov't job that is qualitatively expressed or hard to measure. Various numbers and data show exactly what I do every shift. Why is this not work? Because jobs like this that are inherently governmental can't be "work" in your eyes. I am sorry you don't understand the numbers behind it all and that this confuses you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Elected officials aren't usually unionized (I actually know of no case in which they are.) Oh sorry, I didn't know she was elected. Thought it was some random county clerk So I will retract my argument and present another How is this any different than Virgina Attorney General Mark Herring. During his election he vowed to uphold Virginia's Marriage Amendment. Upon election he not only refused to enforce state law, he went so far as to file a brief in opposition of the law his office was bound to uphold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Oh sorry, I didn't know she was elected. Thought it was some random county clerk So I will retract my argument and present another How is this any different than Virgina Attorney General Mark Herring. During his election he vowed to uphold Virginia's Marriage Amendment. Upon election he not only refused to enforce state law, he went so far as to file a brief in opposition of the law his office was bound to uphold Did a court order him to uphold the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Did a court order him to uphold the law? Who is going to file suit against the Attorney General's office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Who is going to file suit against the Attorney General's office? The state legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 More updates: A Tennessee judge is refusing to grant a divorce between a man a woman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/ The judge's legal opinion is basically this: Tennessee previously had laws regarding marriage (between one man and one woman). These laws were rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court decision. With the Supreme Court decision, the Federal Government has now "set the law" regarding marriage and states can't have their own marriage laws. Tennessee currently has laws regarding divorce, but divorce laws vary from state to state. For example, in South Dakota, a marriage partner cannot be forced to grant a divorce from their other partner, even if the other partner has no interest in getting back together; while in California, a person can get a divorce in this matter. Since the Supreme Court has now "set the law" regarding marriage, the Federal Government now has to "set the law" regarding "what is not a marriage". And this judge makes a good point... In itself, the SCOTUS just made law since there is no current federal law defining marriage. However, there are state laws defining marriage, and the judge in the OP is actually bound by the laws of the state of KY which DOES define marriage. But don't make the mistake of this being all about state rights.... To a point it is, but the bigger issue will be the 1st.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts