Gay Pride

• WebFire

  FairwoodKing;430054 wrote:Married couples have more than a hundred legal rights that unmarried couples (gay or straight) don't have. This is one of the things we're fighting for.

  
  I'm just trying to understand. If I were gay, I wouldn't have a great desire to fight to be married. I wouldn't think it would matter to me. So that's why I ask. What are the big advantages to be married?
• FairwoodKing

  WebFire;430560 wrote:I'm just trying to understand. If I were gay, I wouldn't have a great desire to fight to be married. I wouldn't think it would matter to me. So that's why I ask. What are the big advantages to be married?

  
  There are all kinds of laws involving things like taxes and inheritance. Even in states like MA and Iowa where gay marriage is legal, you can't put your spouse down on IRS statements. There are even laws involving crossing international borders. As I said before, there are well over a hundred laws giving married couples special benefits.
  
  There are really two separate issues here: getting married by the church and getting married by the state. There are churches here in Ohio that will marry gay couples. The problem is that the state won't recognize those marriages.
  
  The compromise is for the state to recognize civil unions. The state of Washington where I just lived has passed laws to that effect. Gay people have all the rights of marriage (at least those provided by the state government) but it is not called marriage. Not calling it marriage swayed some of the undecided voters.
• FairwoodKing

  Manhattan Buckeye;429396 wrote:If you knew the community (and I'm not presuming you are ignorant), you know what I'm talking about. There is a reason why AIDS spread like wildfire in the 80's among gay men. I've been to circuit parties with my FIL just tagging along. Monogamy is not a exactly a virtue for many of them, my FIL as well as others....and he and his partner are among the more conservative in the community.

  
  The 1970's and 1980's were a period of free love for gay men. It was the first time in history that it was easy to meet somebody. Prior to this time, bars were raided by the police on a regular basis and most gay men avoided them. There just weren't many alternatives. But in the 1970's everything changed. Most STD's could be cured, so men didn't bother with condoms. It was a wild and crazy time. When AIDS came along, it took the gay world a long time to realize that unprotected sex was spreading this horrible disease. Well into the 1980's a lot of doctors thought that a popular inhalant call poppers was causing AIDS. There were places called bath houses where all kinds of kinky sex took place, usually in large dark rooms. You didn't even know who you were having sex with. Those places made me nervous and I did not participate. That is probably why I never got AIDS.
  
  In today's world, things are very different. Gay and lesbian domestic partners are usually monogamous and often stay together for decades. I can't tell you how many gay and lesbian couples I know who have been together for twenty years or more. In 2010, as part of the mating ritual for gay men, the two go together to a doctor to get checked for HIV and they go in together to get the results. Unless they both are negative, they usually don't become domestic partners.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;429396 wrote:If you knew the community (and I'm not presuming you are ignorant), you know what I'm talking about. There is a reason why AIDS spread like wildfire in the 80's among gay men. I've been to circuit parties with my FIL just tagging along. Monogamy is not a exactly a virtue for many of them, my FIL as well as others....and he and his partner are among the more conservative in the community.

  
  open marriage is fairly common, if not a little more taboo in the heterosexual world as well. The swinging lifestyle is alive and well.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  It definitely exists, but I wouldn't call it common.
  
  Biology has much to do with it, dudes don't have menstrual cycles or other natural ways of being "out of heat." I agree with FairwoodKing that the community is more responsible now than it was then, but it still isn't the same thing. My FIL would even admit to that.
• isadore

  a victory in California for gay marriage thanks to the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. maybe the courts will do the same for Ohio.
• iclfan2

  

  So a judge turned over something the people of the state voted on?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Once again, a judge had overturned the will of the people. Happened in Arizona last week. The people don't want ObamaKare by an overwhelming margin, and yet it is the law. 4 Supreme court justices thought the 2nd Amendment should be overturned a couple months ago, yet the people overwhelmingly approve of the 2nd Amendment. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want an Islamic Mosque next to Ground Zero in NYC, yet it appears to be moving forward.
  
  At some point, the will of the people will be the law of the land. Might be peaceful...might not. I know one thing, it's going to come to a head real soon.
• isadore

  basic human rights should not be determined based on a temporary electoral majority, an example of majoritarian abuse.
• IggyPride00

  

  2 interesting observations:
  
  1. The judge who made the ruling is an out of the closet gay man, so this should come as little surprise.
  
  2. He was originally nominated to his he bench by Reagan, and the again by George H.W Bush which to me is kind of ironic as this decision will undoubtedly leave Conservatives fuming about judges that legislate from the bench.
• gibby08

  

  BGFalcons82;441926 wrote:Once again, a judge had overturned the will of the people. Happened in Arizona last week. The people don't want ObamaKare by an overwhelming margin, and yet it is the law. 4 Supreme court justices thought the 2nd Amendment should be overturned a couple months ago, yet the people overwhelmingly approve of the 2nd Amendment. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want an Islamic Mosque next to Ground Zero in NYC, yet it appears to be moving forward.
  
  At some point, the will of the people will be the law of the land. Might be peaceful...might not. I know one thing, it's going to come to a head real soon.

  
  1.The Mosque is not next to Ground Zero,it is 4 blocks away
  
  2.Prop 8 should have been overturned, Listen...I am not the biggest fan in the world of gay marriage,but we has a nation SHOULD NOT be able to tell someone that can't marry the person they love
• BGFalcons82

  

  gibby08;441977 wrote:2.Prop 8 should have been overturned, Listen...I am not the biggest fan in the world of gay marriage,but we has a nation SHOULD NOT be able to tell someone that can't marry the person they love

  
  Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight. I am personally against gay marriage, but this is an issue that belongs to each individual state. There are some states in the East (Vermont, Maine?) that have approved gay marriage. The people of California said they do NOT approve of gay marriage by their votes. If gays want to marry, then go to where it is legal.
  
  This is a nation of 57...oops...I mean 50 states. Who the hell ever said there were 57 anyway???? Each state has their own laws that were granted to them by the founding fathers in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If some states want to approve it, then fine. If some want to outlaw it, then that's also fine to me. Move to New England if you want to be gay and married I say. If the people of California vote that they don't want it, then who is some mamby pamby judge to overturn the legal rightful law of the land? We are a nation of laws, not of men, yet this judge thinks he's a legislator at heart and can re-write the law against the will of the people. Can someone spell Caesar?
• isadore

  that same argument could have been used with the Loving 43 years ago. Some states allowed mixed marriage, some states did not. If you dont like the Virginia law against it. Move to another state.
  Virginia was denying people a basic right. Equal protection clause was rightfully applied to end that injustice. Now its been used in California to do it again
• BGFalcons82

  

  isadore;442011 wrote:that same argument could have been used with the Loving 43 years ago. Some states allowed mixed marriage, some states did not. If you dont like the Virginia law against it. Move to another state.
  Virginia was denying people a basic right. Equal protection clause was rightfully applied to end that injustice. Now its been used in California to do it again

  
  Where in the hell is gay marriage a basic right? What clause does that appear in? What Amendment? Is marriage even addressed in our Constitution? I don't think it is, and that's why I believe it is a state's right to determine.
  
  I know I know I know...Lincoln waged a battle over state's rights in the battle against slavery. Bullbutter I say. While the slave owners indeed invoked state's rights, it cannot be construed as the be-all end-all debate on state's rights. There is far much more to it than slavery.
• ts1227

  

  So long as the government insists upon being involved in the marriage business, they are in no position to deny someone based on something like this.
  
  Does a church/religion have to recognize it? Absolutely not.
  
  Personally, I'd love to see government completely uninvolved with marriage.
• majorspark

  

  IggyPride00;441948 wrote:2 interesting observations

  
  Here is another one. A federal judge on the opposite side of the country in Boston. Just a few weeks ago ruled the federal law banning gay marriage unconstitutional. His reason, the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to define marriage. That under the tenth amendment is to be left to the states.
  

  A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOM

  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR4TR01
• isadore

  BGFalcons82;442018 wrote:Where in the hell is gay marriage a basic right? What clause does that appear in? What Amendment? Is marriage even addressed in our Constitution? I don't think it is, and that's why I believe it is a state's right to determine.
  
  I know I know I know...Lincoln waged a battle over state's rights in the battle against slavery. Bullbutter I say. While the slave owners indeed invoked state's rights, it cannot be construed as the be-all end-all debate on state's rights. There is far much more to it than slavery.

  I don’t know if I can top bull butter, I will try. States Rights is an evil and pernicious doctrine. You are right it was not just used to justify slavery, it was also used to protect de jure segregation, Jim Crow. According to you marriage is not a basic right and the federal government has no control over it. So that means in your view the loving case was decided incorrectly states should be able to forbid marriage between people of two different races. Schools are not mentioned in the Constitution, Brown case was wrong, states can segregate their school systems and universities. Public accomodation is not directly mentioned (maybe interstate commerce), segregate those lunch counters again. Just what you, rand paul and ms want to do. Too bad that is not the way the courts have seen it. That damned 14th Amendment, equal protection, education a basic right, marriage a basic right. Too bad for all you states righters.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;442164 wrote:I don’t know if I can top bull butter, I will try. States Rights is an evil and pernicious doctrine. You are right it was not just used to justify slavery, it was also used to protect de jure segregation, Jim Crow. According to you marriage is not a basic right and the federal government has no control over it. So that means in your view the loving case was decided incorrectly states should be able to forbid marriage between people of two different races. Schools are not mentioned in the Constitution, Brown case was wrong, states can segregate their school systems and universities. Public accomodation is not directly mentioned (maybe interstate commerce), segregate those lunch counters again. Just what you, rand paul and ms want to do. Too bad that is not the way the courts have seen it. That damned 14th Amendment, equal protection, education a basic right, marriage a basic right. Too bad for all you states righters.

  
  Really. So BGFalcons82, Rand Paul, and myself, because we believe states have constitutional authority over those powers not given to the federal government. By default we adhere to everything you stated above. When one's argument is weak one descends into baseless accusations. Though countless times I have voiced my opinion on the above matters it is of no consequence, you continue on with your diatribe. Have you no shame?
  
  Do you have the balls to condemn the federal judge in Boston that I cited above with your same diatribe. Surely by invoking states rights to rule a federal law banning recognition of gay marriage the judge must be a racist, bigot, and homophobe. Your silence is telling.
• jmog

  Isadore, you are losing, and losing fast.
  
  The 14th Amendment (at least the section that has to do with this discussion).
  
  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
  
  Please show me where this amendment guarantees gay marriage as a right?
• Steel Valley Football

  This seems to be a flaming hot topic. 15 pages - wow!
• jmog

  Steel Valley Football;442408 wrote:This seems to be a flaming hot topic. 15 pages - wow!

  
  I see what you did there...
• RedRider1

  

  isadore;441930 wrote:basic human rights should not be determined based on a temporary electoral majority, an example of majoritarian abuse.

  So....everything done in that last 18 months in Congress should be null & void? Majoritarian abuse if I've ever seen it.
• isadore

  majorspark wrote:Really. So BGFalcons82, Rand Paul, and myself, because we believe states have constitutional authority over those powers not given to the federal government. By default we adhere to everything you stated above. When one's argument is weak one descends into baseless accusations. Though countless times I have voiced my opinion on the above matters it is of no consequence, you continue on with your diatribe. Have you no shame?
  
  Do you have the balls to condemn the federal judge in Boston that I cited above with your same diatribe. Surely by invoking states rights to rule a federal law banning recognition of gay marriage the judge must be a racist, bigot, and homophobe. Your silence is telling.

  Since you lump yourself, paul and BG by choice. And basis for your comment you quote in its entirety my reaction #362 to BGS comment on #360 of this thread that you are in total agreement with what he wrote.

  BGFalcon82 wrote:Where in the hell is gay marriage a basic right? What clause does that appear in? What Amendment? Is marriage even addressed in our Constitution? I don't think it is, and that's why I believe it is a state's right to determine.

  Of course the Supreme Court in the Loving decision said marriage was “basic right.“ The Court using equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment declared state laws outlawing inter racial marriage unconstitutional. But obviously BG and you by your comment above disagree with that decision. Because as BG writes marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. And that it is the state’s right to determine. If you believe that then you think the Loving decision was incorrect. That states have a right to determine who will marry and who will not be allowed. And by extension the federal government has no right to interfere in other areas not mentioned directly in the Constitution, schools for example. So the Brown v Board of Education case which was decided on the basis of equal protection was also incorrect. School segregation by law would be quite legal. Rand Paul could start to have more and more of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill repealed as he so much wishes.

  BGFalcon82 wrote:I know I know I know...Lincoln waged a battle over state's rights in the battle against slavery. Bullbutter I say. While the slave owners indeed invoked state's rights, it cannot be construed as the be-all end-all debate on state's rights. There is far much more to it than slavery.

  As I said above slavery is not as “be-all, end-all debate on state’s rights.” Of course not, it was then used to justify de jure segregation the system that kept black suppressed under violent regimes in several of our states. Many on here like to use the term tyranny in ridiculous attempt to describe the present political situation. Well tyranny is quite applicable to the situation blacks found themselves in for a century after slavery was ended. States rights was the legal basis for that system. The segregationist were states righters from Nathan Bedford Forrest to George Corley Wallace to Rand Paul.
  Although the Massachusetts case does have the justice result of giving gay couples the benefits they deserve, the judge used the wrong basis for his decision. Use of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights for gay couples would be on firmer constitutional ground and have widened the effect of his decision.
  My silence was only telling you I was asleep.
• isadore

  RedRider1;442433 wrote:So....everything done in that last 18 months in Congress should be null & void? Majoritarian abuse if I've ever seen it.

  
  in the opinion of you and the tinfoil teapartiers, not me.
• isadore

  jmog;442319 wrote:Isadore, you are losing, and losing fast.
  
  The 14th Amendment (at least the section that has to do with this discussion).
  
  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
  
  Please show me where this amendment guarantees gay marriage as a right?

  The Supreme Court has applied the 14th Amendment as it was meant to be applied by its authors to prevent state abuse of their citizens. Marriage according to the Supreme Court is a “basic right.” If we give equal protection under our laws to all Americans that right should be available to all consenting adults.
  It is truly fascinating to see how states righters continue to want a very constricted application of the 14th Amendment to return to their good old days of segregation. Marriage is not mentioned so in your constricted view Jmog the states are quite justified in passing laws that outlaw interracial marriage. And education is not mentioned so it is all right to resegregate the schools. Out with Brown v Education.
  Luckily the courts have not allowed that bigoted, states rights view to continue to blight our nation.