Oregon governor signs gay rights bills

[Adrian]

Muslims don't follow the NT, which is where my partial quote came from.

That's interesting. So scripture only affects people who believe in it?

 

[Jerry]

How is it ok to have to ask permission from the government to get married?

The government has the goodies, like laws which say you can't be discriminated against by a landlord just because you’re married, laws which say you get your hubby's crap if they die, not someone else, etc.

You don't want the legal buffs? Fine. Don't apply. It's cool.
If you want what the gov. has to give you, it's theirs to begin with, so you have to ask for them.

Why does the government have to set the rules for all that you put there.

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, bla bla bla something like that...

The taxes is obvious way of the government cementing it's power over the marriage license. There is no reason why there should be any "benefit" in terms of taxes.

I pay all of my wife's bills = tax brake.
I pay for all my girlfriend's bills does not = tax brake.

Next-of-kin status can be established with birth certificates,

My wife is not my daughter nor am I her son; we are not siblings.

everything else can be handled with private contract.

Of which the government ain't a signing party, so you don't get the automatic legal protections.

At no point is the government needed, nor should it be accepted.

Anarchist?

Our founders didn't have to ask permission to get married, they just went and got married.

Not to other men they didn't.

Marriage is a religious event and not the place of government.

You're talking about a different kind of "marriage".

"Marriage" is a legal contract of which the state is a signing party.

 

[Jerry]

That's interesting. So scripture only affects people who believe in it?

You lost me.
That question does not follow with the line of the discussion and is ambiguous.

Please be more spicific than "affects".

 

[Adrian]

You lost me.
That question does not follow with the line of the discussion and is ambiguous.

Please be more spicific than "affects".

Would "applies to" be clearer?

 

[Ikari]

The government has the goodies, like laws which say you can't be discriminated against by a landlord just because you’re married, laws which say you get your hubby's crap if they die, not someone else, etc.

Those "goodies" are the property of the individual and you can take care of that in a will.

You don't want the legal buffs? Fine. Don't apply. It's cool.
If you want what the gov. has to give you, it's theirs to begin with, so you have to ask for them.

What does the government have? Money? I gave it to them. Power of taxation? I gave it to them. The government has nothing innate, all power and authority come from the people. It's not theirs to give, it's mine. Why is it that the founders didn't have to ask permission to marry, but we do? Lost liberty is what that is, and defending the expansion of government and the loss of liberty is quite disturbing IMO.

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, bla bla bla something like that...

Marriage isn't part of that, and it wasn't part of the specific powers granted to the federal government. The state and federal have no place sticking their noses into marriage, it's not their place.

I pay all of my wife's bills = tax brake.
I pay for all my girlfriend's bills does not = tax brake.

You shouldn't be getting a tax break, your wife uses all the same utilities and services the rest of us do. You should pay your fair share...commie.

My wife is not my daughter nor am I her son; we are not siblings.

Well it's good to know your family tree doesn't loop back upon itself.

Of which the government ain't a signing party, so you don't get the automatic legal protections.

The government upholds the rights and liberties of We the People, you get automatic legal protection where your rights are concerned.

Anarchist?

Nope, some government is necessary. I'm just a stern defender of freedom and liberty.

Not to other men they didn't.

That was their churches place, not the state. Their churches wouldn't recognize same sex marriage and since the state had nothing to do with it they were more than free to not recognize it.

You're talking about a different kind of "marriage".

"Marriage" is a legal contract of which the state is a signing party.

The marriage you talk of was one invented by the government. And guess why the government wished to install a marriage license. To prevent interracial marriage! That's right, the whole of that contract is rooted in bigotry and hatred; sad to see it hasn't grown past it. It was a tool wielded by the government and applicable only to interracial couples in order to prevent their marriage. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in which these laws were ruled unconstitutional. And what did the government do? The right thing would have been to abolish the marriage license, but instead they subjugated everyone to it. Stolen liberty, people are now less free because their churches can no longer set the rules. This is what you argue for, a history of racism and bigotry kept and expanded upon.

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

Hmmm...sound familiar? Same stupid argument, different lot of people to oppress. But you want to keep this in the state, let's take it. Because the state can't discriminate, individual churches can but the government can not. Marriage is a contract between two people, the government can not say homosexuals can't get married, they do not have that innate power of discrimination. If there is any comfort to take from this it is that those arguments of the past to bar interracial marriage, the same one's you use now against same sex couples, they didn't work and eventually interracial marriages became unquestioned. Guess what, same thing's gonna happen with same sex marriage. Like it or not, despite the history of hate and discrimination inherent to the marriage license, we will always strive for more freedom.

 

[Navy Pride]

The federal government has no rightful say in the matter. Initially marriage was a religious thing only and the government didn't touch it. It was only until the marriage license was created (any guesses why?) that the government stuck its nose where it didn't belong. It was expanded upon till we have what we got today. I see no reason why we should have to ask the government's permission to get married, it is none of their business and they should stay out. Again, the marriage license should be abolished and it should be left to the individual churches as it's supposed to be.

That is your opinion and you know what opinions are like.........

 

[Navy Pride]

I asked that, not said that. So what does it mean to force the gay lifestyle down everybody's throats?

Navy? Do you believe that the Gay Agenda (TM) is to make everybody gay?

No I don't.......I told you what I believe........

 

[Ikari]

tThat is your opinion and you know what opinions are like.........

It was an usurped power by the government, one which it never held. This is the truth, your defense of big government and govenrment expansion withstanding, the truth is that this is something the government grabbed. This is why the founders didn't have to ask permission from the government to be married. The government wasn't involved, it was up to the churches and that was that. I guess I'll never understand why people will defend big, intrusive government.

 

[Navy Pride]

It was an usurped power by the government, one which it never held. This is the truth, your defense of big government and govenrment expansion withstanding, the truth is that this is something the government grabbed. This is why the founders didn't have to ask permission from the government to be married. The government wasn't involved, it was up to the churches and that was that. I guess I'll never understand why people will defend big, intrusive government.

As a very Conservative person I hate big government. but I do believe government is needed for some policy...Now if you want to get government out of the abortion business and give it back to the states where it belongs that is another matter.......:roll:

 

[Ikari]

As a very Conservative person I hate big government. but I do believe government is needed for some policy...Now if you want to get government out of the abortion business and give it back to the states where it belongs that is another matter.......:roll:

Why don't you read my posts in the Guiliani thread. Unlike you, I don't flip flop on my small government position.

 

[disneydude]

As a very Conservative person I hate big government. but I do believe government is needed for some policy...Now if you want to get government out of the abortion business and give it back to the states where it belongs that is another matter.......:roll:

....showing your neo-con core again. Navy, you LOVE big Government. There isn't a person on these boards that wants government involved in peoples lives than you.

..as for your abortion comment....isn't the "State" also part of the government? Maybe its not "Federal"...but it is still government nonetheless....

 

[Navy Pride]

....showing your neo-con core again. Navy, you LOVE big Government. There isn't a person on these boards that wants government involved in peoples lives than you.

..as for your abortion comment....isn't the "State" also part of the government? Maybe its not "Federal"...but it is still government nonetheless....

You can believe as you like DD but I am a fiem believer in small government and states rights as the founding fathers declared in the constitution.....Unfortunately you liberals want the federal government involved in everything....

 

[Navy Pride]

Why don't you read my posts in the Guiliani thread. Unlike you, I don't flip flop on my small government position.

Becasue I don't care if you flip flop or not.......

 

[Ikari]

Of course not, no reason to call attention to your own hypocrisies.

 

[Pizza]

The government thinks marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing..It is and ingredient in how we procreate.....That is why there are benefits for getting married............

How exactly does that promote an ideal arrangement in practice? For example, let us assume that the best way to raise a child is a loving mother and father. Does a government piece of paper solidify love? When someone gets a certificate from the government saying they're married do they exclaim "golly gee, I really love you now!"? Do monetary benefits solidify love? A love based on greed doesn't seem to be adding to a successful marriage either. Does the legal contract stating that who gets what if they divorce, when they die, or whatnot strengthen a marriage or is it just a legal addon that really doesn't solidfy the love in a relationship.

Just state how the benefits given by the government helps a marriage. I don't have a problem with bending on powers of government when it is pragmatic, but this simply isn't one of those cases.

 

[Jerry]

Would "applies to" be clearer?

Yup.

That's interesting. So scripture only [applies to] people who believe in it?

Does gun control legislation only apply to people who believe in the law?

Is it that the law does not apply, or that people choose contrary to the law?

I think the latter.

Jesus is the savior of Muslims just as he is for everyone else.

 

[Jerry]

Those "goodies" are the property of the individual and you can take care of that in a will.

The goodies are the legal protections, not your property. You own your property, sure, but you don't own the legal protections.

What does the government have?

Legal protections.

Money?

Legal protections.

The government has nothing innate, all power and authority come from the people.

I agree, but that's gona come back to bite ya here in a minute.

It's not theirs to give, it's mine.

The legal protections are not yours unless you apply for them. You have a right to receive them, and marriage is a shall-issue license, but those legal benefits are not automatically yours just by virtue of you breathing.

Why is it that the founders didn't have to ask permission to marry, but we do?

They didn't have to ask for permission to use state legal protections because those protections didn't exist yet.

Lost liberty is what that is, and defending the expansion of government and the loss of liberty is quite disturbing IMO.

Gay marriage is disturbing to you?

Marriage isn't part of that, and it wasn't part of the specific powers granted to the federal government. The state and federal have no place sticking their noses into marriage, it's not their place.

It is the government's place to protect the rights of it's citizens. Marriage is an instrument to that end.

You shouldn't be getting a tax break, your wife uses all the same utilities and services the rest of us do. You should pay your fair share...commie.

I don't understand.
Yes, my wife uses her fair share of utilities and services, but she does not pay for it. I pay for it. I pay for her utilities. I pay for her clothes. I pay her rent. I pay for the gas in her car. In return my kinds have a stay at home mom, and what I pay in bills is a fair price for what my children get, so you lost me.

I file "Married 4". How is that communist?

Next-of-kin status can be established with birth certificates...

My wife is not my daughter nor am I her son; we are not siblings.

Well it's good to know your family tree doesn't loop back upon itself.

So how about that next-of-kin status? It can't be established with certificates among spouses.

The government upholds the rights and liberties of We the People, you get automatic legal protection where your rights are concerned.

That's right. That's what marriage law is all about. Just let big bro know who's married and *poof* you got 'em.

***

Nope, some government is necessary. I'm just a stern defender of freedom and liberty.

*Ahem*...

At no point is the government needed, nor should it be accepted.

Please explain.

***

Our founders didn't have to ask permission to get married, they just went and got married.

Not to other men they didn't.

That was their churches place, not the state. Their churches wouldn't recognize same sex marriage and since the state had nothing to do with it they were more than free to not recognize it.

Traditionally, yes, you have to have the church’s permission to marry.

***

The marriage you talk of was one invented by the government.

*Ahem*...

The government has nothing innate, all power and authority come from the people.

Please explain.

***

And guess why the government wished to install a marriage license. To prevent interracial marriage! That's right, the whole of that contract is rooted in bigotry and hatred; sad to see it hasn't grown past it. It was a tool wielded by the government and applicable only to interracial couples in order to prevent their marriage. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in which these laws were ruled unconstitutional. And what did the government do? The right thing would have been to abolish the marriage license, but instead they subjugated everyone to it.

That's what happens when the Union wins the Civil War; which wasn't about slavery, btw, but that's another thread.

Stolen liberty, people are now less free because their churches can no longer set the rules.

Words to live by.
If churches could set the rules we would have had gay marriage a long time ago. Polygamy too. And I'm talking about Muslim Polygamy.

This is what you argue for, a history of racism and bigotry kept and expanded upon.

Quote where I argued for that.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

That's a good source.

Hmmm...sound familiar? Same stupid argument, different lot of people to oppress. But you want to keep this in the state, let's take it. Because the state can't discriminate, individual churches can but the government can not. Marriage is a contract between two people, the government can not say homosexuals can't get married, they do not have that innate power of discrimination.

That's right. That's why I said gay marriage is an inevitability.

If there is any comfort to take from this it is that those arguments of the past to bar interracial marriage, the same one's you use now against same sex couples, they didn't work and eventually interracial marriages became unquestioned. Guess what, same thing's gonna happen with same sex marriage. Like it or not, despite the history of hate and discrimination inherent to the marriage license, we will always strive for more freedom.

Amazing!

I argue the exact same thing.

I call it my legal "Slippery-Slope®". Essentially, gay marriage must occur as a consequence of Loving -v- Virginia. Also, polygamy must occur as a consequence of Living -v- Virginia.

Like I said in post # 68:

Been tellin you guys, gay marriage is inevitable..."As it was in the days of Noah....."

This is just another tinny lil piece of scripture unfolding.

All this gay marriage stuff that's going on....its scripture unfolding, yet still a good number call it a fairy tail. Oh well, I don't try and fight them any more.

 

[Navy Pride]

How exactly does that promote an ideal arrangement in practice? For example, let us assume that the best way to raise a child is a loving mother and father. Does a government piece of paper solidify love? When someone gets a certificate from the government saying they're married do they exclaim "golly gee, I really love you now!"? Do monetary benefits solidify love? A love based on greed doesn't seem to be adding to a successful marriage either. Does the legal contract stating that who gets what if they divorce, when they die, or whatnot strengthen a marriage or is it just a legal addon that really doesn't solidfy the love in a relationship.

Just state how the benefits given by the government helps a marriage. I don't have a problem with bending on powers of government when it is pragmatic, but this simply isn't one of those cases.

There are many perks in being married........Tax breaks, SS, etc. come to mind....

 

[Jerry]

There are many perks in being married........Tax breaks, SS, etc. come to mind....

"Privileged Communication" is another

 

[Jerry]

There are many perks in being married........Tax breaks, SS, etc. come to mind....

Oh you think you’re taking all that Lotto money and moving to the Bahamas with your new trophy girlfriend, do you?

"Community Property".

 

[Jerry]

There are many perks in being married........Tax breaks, SS, etc. come to mind....

Spouse: "Pull the feeding tube."

Parent: "Don't pull the feeding tube."

Judge: "Pull the feeding tube."

...or how about this....

Doctor: "Your wife is in critical condition, we have to abort her pregnancy in order to have the best chance of saving her...."

Spouse: "Abort".

Sibling or parent: "Don't abort".

Doctor: turns to spouse "We'll abort, sign here."


Automatic next-of-kin status.

 

[cherokee]

Good for them!
Its about fooking time someone wised up....


I still love the ideal the gay marriage will somehow magical destroy the wonderful marriage I have with my wife….:roll:



Did you know I was intolerant of gays?...:lamo

 

[Jerry]

You can't take F.M.L.A for a sick gir/boy-friend

 

[Jerry]

You can't take F.M.L.A for a sick gir/boy-friend

They can't use your employee discount either.

 

[Panache]

The question posed by Pizza:

or is it just a legal addon that really doesn't solidfy the love in a relationship.

The answers:

There are many perks in being married........Tax breaks, SS, etc. come to mind....

"Privileged Communication" is another

"Community Property".

You can't take F.M.L.A for a sick gir/boy-friend

They can't use your employee discount either.

So in other words, yes, Pizza, it just a legal addon that really doesn't solidfy the love in a relationship.