Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Don't you know? The world revolves around where you want to stick your cheney.

Ah -- I think you're onto something here.


But you know there is something wrong, when even I begin to wonder if Off-Topic is too saturated with threads on issues concerning gays.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Am I the only one who wonders if Giancarlo would hold the same speech if he was a clear-cut straight? (insecure straight doesn't count)

And to that btw

I'm insecure and I have a boyfriend? Okay that doesn't sound right.

[Elok]

Society "encourages" marriage, if it still does at all, for the reasons I mentioned to Ned: to encourage loyalty within a family unit. Like it or not, gays are now forming family structures of their own. It's not a matter of allowing homosexuality itself (good luck trying to stop them from doing that), but of allowing people who want to live more closely to do so, regardless of what body part they like to penetrate. At least, that's the gist of the argument. I think. Somebody tell me if I'm way off-base here. As I said, I've seen no reason to believe that gay relationships are a danger society, and civic policy in the U.S. traditionally errs on the side of liberty: if there is no apparent harm done, let it go.

The Clinton scandal was embarrassing not just because Slick Willy himself was a mimbo, but because we were trying to judge a man unfit for duty because of unrelated aspects of his personal life. It's not the government's duty to tell people right and wrong. That's for the church by my reckoning (to save Sava the effort, I will now insert the smiley). Government exists to keep our bad judgment from hurting innocent bystanders. Free will should be given free reign provided you act knowingly and only screw up your own life.

I wasn't addressing the last paragraph directly at you; sorry for being vague. By blunt physical repercussions I meant that there is nothing sacramental about law. If you cheat on your spouse, God will be angry, yes, but where the law is concerned it's more important that the divorce proceedings are going to totally maul your wallet. I only meant that our legal system is hardly metaphysical, and "sanctity of marriage" is not a primary concern.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
All the so-called rights gays want can be granted by contract or deed. There is no need for any government involvement whatsoever.

Not true at all. Ever hear of "Spousal priviledge" in legal proceedings? Only married people currently can get it, and there's no contractual remedy.

[David Floyd]

Though I always did think (and still do) that government should get out of certifying unions or marriages and just have divisions of property, etc., based on bilateral contracts.

Hey! Imran and I have a point of agreement

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not true at all. Ever hear of "Spousal priviledge" in legal proceedings? Only married people currently can get it, and there's no contractual remedy.

He was saying that in the context of the government not recognizing any marriage or priviledges from it.

[FlameFlash]

What is the point of a marriage license in the first place if people can live their lives anyway they want to without governmental interference

So the government can track us?

does not mean that the government should be removed from all areas of influence.

No, but it does show that, as usual, the government does a lousy job at trying to handle the big picture when all of the little people handle their smaller pictures so much better, and thus could create the big picture without government getting involved in 'moral' issues sweepingly.

So how would the apparatus of the state be applied to this situation in such a blunt fashion? Would the state hunt down any gay people in relationships to make sure they do not marry?

No, they just deny marriage licenses and the ability to file jointly on ones taxes.

[David Floyd]

Again, just because we do not know the effects of an action, does not justify the action. One would anticipate that a good reason should be put forth to do the action in the first place.

So, BK, your view is that before "society" allows any individual freedoms, it must be proven that said freedom has a positive impact on "society"?

[Nubclear]

Bad news everyone:
Both the senate and house of Utah passed the amendment.
Now we just wait for a gov signature...Which were sure to get

However on a (dim) upside, protestors to this turned out in record numbers in SLC, suprrising even the organizers. SLC is becoming the most un-Utah city in Utah!

[Frankychan]

I thought Giancarlo was a right-wing fascist? (not a flame)


I just learned Hawaii is the only state where it's in the constitution restricting the freedom of individuals....as pertaining to the same-sex marriage issue.

....and I thought our state was liberal. Those Fundy's make me sick.

[Nubclear]

America - a backwards nation

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I thought Giancarlo was a right-wing fascist? (not a flame)

I am no fascist also I happen to be gay.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not true at all. Ever hear of "Spousal priviledge" in legal proceedings? Only married people currently can get it, and there's no contractual remedy.

Boris, I have evolved on this issue. I have a hard time understanding what marriage licenses are for if people can just live together, form contracts or obtain rights by operation of law (Lee Marvin). I now think that people simply need to claim to be "married" or its equivalent by filing a marriage certificate, contract or evidence of long term cohabitation in order to obtain any benefit traditionally reserved for married couples.

Under such a system, any couple who claim to be such (and provide adequate proof, see above) can get spousal status.

We still have the formalities in order to be "married" in Kalifornia. However, long term cohabitors have the same rights as those formally married.

How people conduct their sexual and romantic lives should be none of the governments business. If they choose to marry or the defacto equivalent, regardless of sex, the state should recognize the "facts on the ground," so to speak when the couple make the claim.

The matter of children and subsidies for keeping families together should be a separate topic.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
America - a backwards nation

Actually, Kalifornia is more advanced than anywhere else in the world, and it is in Amerika.

[Jaguar]

I would make this a states issue for now.