Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[loinburger]

What the hell happened in BCE 1871?

[BeBMan]

Bismarck Created Empire 1871

[Asher]

The more bc1871 posts, the more I like him. He's like the Dominion version of Wiglaf.

[Theben]

Allowing gays to marry, in no way improves society. Now, I’m not going to say that all straight marriages have it together either, but what good does it do to allow homosexuals to marry?

Teh Gaze will be happier*, and thus our society improves on the whole.

Instead of being out in the streets chanting, "2, 4, 6, 8..." they'll actually be inside doing productive things like designing cashmere throws, neon pink chaps and 2011 hairstyles for your toy poodle.

They won't be pushing out whiny brats, which greatly reduces the impact on the environment and less competition for my whiny brat when she grows up. So all in all, why not let them marry?


*- Happy as any straight married couple... i.e. not very.

[BeBMan]

Well, if they marry they'll reproduce and then we get much more of them. Don't say it's impossible, remember Jurassic Park. /BK

[bc1871]

So aside from a few more trashy TV shows about style, and some rather questionable fashion trends, there are really no good reasons to allow gay marriage.

After all, gays can live together; they can even leave their personal possessions to whoever they like.

It's not as if their rights are being deprived, and furthermore marriage isn't even a right, it's a privilege, which in a religious context is to be used as a catalyst for children and better understanding God.

[SlowwHand]

In many instances gays can't include their partner on health insurance, for instance.
The views on gay partnerships needs to be updated, without doubt.

[Asher]

So aside from a few more trashy TV shows about style, and some rather questionable fashion trends, there are really no good reasons to allow gay marriage.

After all, gays can live together; they can even leave their personal possessions to whoever they like.

It's not as if their rights are being deprived, and furthermore marriage isn't even a right, it's a privilege, which in a religious context is to be used as a catalyst for children and better understanding God.

1) Hospital visitation
2) Insurance reasons (health, even **** like getting discounts on car insurance that married couples get )
3) Tax savings married couples get
4) In many cases, after the death of a partner when there is no will the partner is completely frozen out of any rights or inheritances. In some cases, the partner got kicked out of his own home by the family of the dead.

There's many reasons why banning gay marriage is depriving gays of rights, and it's precisely because the laws in the West are built upon marriages, not partnerships. If marriage is a religious institution, it should not have legal repercussions. If it's not a religious institution, there's no reason for gays not to be allowed to marry.

[SlowwHand]

You're correct. The only reason to be against it is religious reasons, but in no way should anything about legal partnerships be any different from a marriage.

[Kuciwalker]

Sloww

[Wiglaf]

1) Hospital visitation
2) Insurance reasons (health, even **** like getting discounts on car insurance that married couples get )
3) Tax savings married couples get
4) In many cases, after the death of a partner when there is no will the partner is completely frozen out of any rights or inheritances. In some cases, the partner got kicked out of his own home by the family of the dead.

There's many reasons why banning gay marriage is depriving gays of rights,

You need to learn to distinguish between depriving someone of "rights" and depriving them of "benefits conferred onto them because they are members of a class the state wants to protect or encourage for moral and cultural reasons."

There are many rights the state confers, and then there are those benefits it confers to be nice to those it prefers. I do not see why this is a major issue. You may notice that in America under Obama the state prefers conferring benefits now on the poor who do not work and who cannot afford health care and suck off their drug dealing cousins to make rent.

Facts are facts: Butt****ing has been against the common law since before any of you were at winkle in God's eye. No one's rights are being denied here. They were 20 years ago. Pick your battles.

[SlowwHand]

Thanks, Kuci.

My ass, Wiggy. All men created equal. It doesn't say a thing about sexual orientation.
It does say about separation of church and state, which means the government won't put forth an endorsed religion and that legal is based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It certainly doesn't condemn relgion and I think atheists push the envelope on a lot of things, but I acknowledge that some religious institutions push them in that direction, unfortunately.
Are you going to let some old redneck from Texas be more forward-thinking than you?

[Wiglaf]

My ass, Wiggy. All men created equal. It doesn't say a thing about sexual orientation.
It does say about separation of church and state, which means the government won't put forth an endorsed religion and that legal is based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It certainly doesn't condemn relgion and I think atheists push the envelope on a lot of things, but I acknowledge that some religious institutions push them in that direction, unfortunately.
Are you going to let some old redneck from Texas be more forward-thinking than you?

This has nothing to do with any religion. What are you talking about?

To not violate equal protection, the state needs to have a compelling reason or state interest to discriminate against a class. Actually, it just needs rational basis in this case. The state finds this compelling reason/rational basis all the time, since as you no doubt know, most laws discriminate against people in some way or another. This is why 18 year olds cannot drink -- very flimsy rational basis, which is more than satisfied in the case of gay marriage. I mean, common law from the last 200 years alone (which is decidedly against gay marriage) is more rational basis to support a gay marriage ban than anything supporting the drinking ban.

Back to Asher's overblown alarmist Chicken Little do-me-in-the-ass rights bull****, note that getting married isn't even really a right. Think of all the restrictions. You need to get married only after filing certain paperwork, finding someone of an appropriate age, finding only one person, finding a human being. It's a complete abomination to claim "gay marriage rights" are being violated. It's an insult to the concept of a right. The government could abandon marriage altogether tomorrow.

[SlowwHand]

It has everything to do with religion. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.

[Wiglaf]

Can we restrict this discussion to people with JDs only, please? This is insulting my intelligence.

What specific religion or Church is being endorsed by government here in violation of Amendment 1? Atheists can get married for ****s sake. Civil ceremony.

Just to spell it out, since it's apparently not clear. The state cannot discriminate between religious and non-religious people, nor can it prefer a particular church, with regard to marriage. If it tried, this would be an Amendment 1 issue. The issue here is not religious. It is sexual.