Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:07 PM

It's a good thing.

Mass. approves gay marriage ban, legalizes civil unions

Dakar · Mar 29, 2004, 09:11 PM

And so begins seperate but unequal.

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

It's a good thing.

Mass. approves gay marriage ban, legalizes civil unions

No, it's not.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:21 PM

Sure it is.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There WILL be a compromise.

So far it looks to be supportive of gay relationships as being treated equally. But they will be called civil unions. That is what most people are going for. That is what is most supported.

zachs · Mar 29, 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Sure it is.

Whatever you say...

Dakar · Mar 29, 2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Sure it is.

Do you really want to start an "Is too!" "Is not!" argument?

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by zachs:
Whatever you say...

It isn't what I am saying that is important. I'm expressing how happy I am that the right thing has been done. You are entitled to your oppinion.

The court is right in it's decision to uphold the law.
I hope the marriages that have been performed are dissallowed.

Have a nice day.

ghost_flash · Mar 29, 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Do you really want to start an "Is too!" "Is not!" argument?

No way. I know an argument I cannot win, and that would be the old-

Is too- Is not argument with a liberal. It's their weapon of choice when
arguing a point they cannot win with intelligent and respectful discourse.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I hope the marriages that have been performed are dissallowed.

They weren't legit in the first place. As it was against the law when it happened.

Sad, but true.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 29, 2004, 09:48 PM

AFAIK no same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts to date. The Judicial Court's deadline is still May 17. If the General Court doesn't face up to it by then, there WILL be marriages anyway for at least a couple of years.

And then we will get to see some real fun should the state decide to divorce people against their will.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
AFAIK no same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts to date.

I was speaking about California.

The Judicial Court's deadline is still May 17. If the General Court doesn't face up to it by then, there WILL be marriages anyway for at least a couple of years.
And then we will get to see some real fun should the state decide to divorce people against their will.

Eh, it wont be retroactive. They will just call them civil unions.

Dakar · Mar 29, 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
No way. I know an argument I cannot win, and that would be the old-

Is too- Is not argument with a liberal. It's their weapon of choice when
arguing a point they cannot win with intelligent and respectful discourse.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 29, 2004, 10:16 PM

Zimphire--

Eh, it wont be retroactive. They will just call them civil unions.

No, I've looked at the text of what passed and it is absolutely retroactive. It invalidates any existing same sex marriages that might exist. It doesn't transmute them.

I suggest you actually _read_ what it says, rather than _imagine_ what it says.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 10:19 PM

cpt I am sorry, I was giving you my OPINION. I should have stated as much.

Again, we will see.

I was right about this so far.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 29, 2004, 10:24 PM

Zimphire--

cpt I am sorry, I was giving you my OPINION. I should have stated as much.

Again, we will see.

The thing is, Zimph, your opinion doesn't change what would happen were this to actually pass. For the state to arbitrarily divorce people at its whim -- that's a big thing. Imagine if it that to you, for no better reason than because it felt like it. Having extended marriage, I don't think it can decide to take it back. Not trivially.

Meneldil · Mar 30, 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
AFAIK no same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts to date. The Judicial Court's deadline is still May 17. If the General Court doesn't face up to it by then, there WILL be marriages anyway for at least a couple of years.

And then we will get to see some real fun should the state decide to divorce people against their will.

You're right. There haven't been any marriages in Massachusetts, but there will be starting May 17th. For the constitutional amendment to pass, it must be approved by two consecutive legislatures then submitted to the general population, which means the earliest it can happen is sometime in 2006. It's possible the court could allow the state to refuse to issue marriage licenses until the amendment issue is decided, but they haven't indicated they'll do that yet.

I think nullifying marriages that have already taken place is a very bad idea - imagine if a couple had jointly adopted kids, or one partner is a foreign national and they want to get married so they can be together in the US. I'm hoping once people see gay marriages happening in the spring and summer and realize the world isn't going to end, they'll become more comfortable with the idea.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Zimphire--

The thing is, Zimph, your opinion doesn't change what would happen were this to actually pass.

I never said it did. I said that this is they way it was heading. And I was right. EVen though I was told otherwise.

For the state to arbitrarily divorce people at its whim -- that's a big thing. Imagine if it that to you, for no better reason than because it felt like it. Having extended marriage, I don't think it can decide to take it back. Not trivially.

Oh, there is more reason than "Just because we felt like it"

I blame the states that jumped the gun. They shouldn't have. The homosexuals also should have waited.

DeathToWindows · Mar 30, 2004, 06:11 PM

somehow, I bet this gets killed between 2004 and 2006...

macvillage.net · 09:54 AM

Somehow, I'm rather sure Civil Unions won't stand to actually be implemented.

Conservatives are against it, because it still gives homosexual couples some rights.

Homosexuals are also against it, because it re-legalizes the "separate but equal" clause, without it being quite equal. Remember Civil Unions aren't recognized by other countries, or even other states. It's only recognized within the state.

As they have been saying on TV. If a homosexual couple goes on vacation to NY, and one gets sick, the other has no visitation rights in that state, since the civil union is only within the state it's issued in.

So it's far from equal, it limits the couple to the confinds of the state. Or risk losing rights given by the status. And if you move, you have to do it again (if the state allows it).

Since both sides don't agree to it (it's the only thing they agree to disagree with), I'm pretty sure this "compromise" will be nothing more than a vaporbill.

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 10:47 AM

There WILL be a compromise. No one side is going to get their way.

macvillage.net · Mar 31, 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There WILL be a compromise. No one side is going to get their way.

Again, a mirror of the civil rights movement.

The only difference is the group being discriminated against. Other than that, it's the same argument, same sides, same debates. Even many of the key players and organizatoins (just some have aged quite a bit).

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Again, a mirror of the civil rights movement.

No. For that to be true. You'd have to show me where we stopped the blacks from marrying each other.

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Again, a mirror of the civil rights movement.

The only difference is the group being discriminated against. Other than that, it's the same argument, same sides, same debates. Even many of the key players and organizatoins (just some have aged quite a bit).

BAH!

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No. For that to be true. You'd have to show me where we stopped the blacks from marrying each other.

Heh. You're right, we allowed blacks to marry each other, just not anyone else (whites). Gays can marry straight people, they just can't marry each other.

Seems like discrimination between juxtaposed approaches to me.

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Heh. You're right, we allowed blacks to marry each other, just not anyone else (whites). Gays can marry straight people, they just can't marry each other.

Seems like discrimination between juxtaposed approaches to me.

Apples and oranges are BOTH fruits, so they MUST BE ALIKE!

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:07 PM

Let's just use the French version of civil unions as a model. Go to the courthouse, sign a piece of paper...voila you are unionized(?)

Want a divorce, go to court, sign a piece of paper, no reasons needed, viola 3 months later - you are divorced. Yes, it is pathetic and demeaning to the whole ideal of life partnerships - but what the hell, America is going down the tubes anyway, and this will give me the opportunity to have a union with some person so I can get some tax benefits. Hell, I will even form a union with a guy if he is rich enough and doesn't expect any form of intimate contact whatsoever! How convienient that would be.

This isn't a civil rights movement, it is an attack on society. It is a small faction pushing to integrate their lifestyle into mainstream society...nothing more, nothing less. Some of you believe it is a good thing, but I submit that it is a horrible thing, and if people who choose a lifestyle of sodomy and sexual gratification get their way...we are on the road to an amoral society that will fall like Rome (which incidently began its downfall when they accepted homosexuality as the norm).

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Apples and oranges are BOTH fruits, so they MUST BE ALIKE!

Excellent job addressing the points.

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Let's just use the French version of civil unions as a model. Go to the courthouse, sign a piece of paper...viola you are unionized(?)

Want a divorce, go to court, sign a piece of paper, no reasons needed, viola 3 months later - you are divorced. Yes, it is pathetic and demeaning to the whole ideal of life partnerships - but what the hell, America is going down the tubes anyway, and this will give me the opportunity to have a union with some person so I can get some tax benefits. Hell, I will even form a union with a guy if he is rich enough and doesn't expect any form of intimate contact whatsoever! How convienient that would be.

Yes, a man and woman have never done that...

Originally posted by dcolton:
This isn't a civil rights movement, it is an attack on society. It is a small faction pushing to integrate their lifestyle into mainstream society...nothing more, nothing less. Some of you believe it is a good thing, but I submit that it is a horrible thing, and if people who choose a lifestyle of sodomy and sexual gratification get their way...we are on the road to an amoral society that will fall like Rome (which incidently began its downfall when they accepted homosexuality as the norm).

Right. You're discriminating against them because of their lifestyle. Because you find it objectionable.

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Excellent job addressing the points.

I thought it was indeed. I was showing what was being compared.

ANYTHING can be justified as being similar if you try hard enough.

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
This isn't a civil rights movement, it is an attack on society. It is a small faction pushing to integrate their lifestyle into mainstream society...nothing more, nothing less. Some of you believe it is a good thing, but I submit that it is a horrible thing, and if people who choose a lifestyle of sodomy and sexual gratification get their way...we are on the road to an amoral society that will fall like Rome (which incidently began its downfall when they accepted homosexuality as the norm).

Worth repeating.

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I thought it was indeed. I was showing what was being compared.

ANYTHING can be justified as being similar if you try hard enough.

Except I was barely trying. Civil rights lends itself to the gay marriage issue because they do indeed have several commonalities.

To say my comparison is dissimilar would be splitting hairs.

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
To say my comparison is dissimilar would be splitting hairs.

To say they are comparable would be also.

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
To say they are comparable would be also.

So what is the major difference between the two that disqualifies the comparison? The basis for the discrimination, or the moral idealogies between the two?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 31, 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
This isn't a civil rights movement, it is an attack on society. It is a small faction pushing to integrate their lifestyle into mainstream society...nothing more, nothing less. Some of you believe it is a good thing, but I submit that it is a horrible thing, and if people who choose a lifestyle of sodomy and sexual gratification get their way...we are on the road to an amoral society that will fall like Rome (which incidently began its downfall when they accepted homosexuality as the norm).

How did you manage to type this with all that foam splattering the keyboard?

Zimphire · Mar 31, 2004, 01:19 PM

Moral beliefs = foaming at the mouth?

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
if people who choose a lifestyle of sodomy and sexual gratification get their way...we are on the road to an amoral society that will fall like Rome.

Excuse me, but many straight people have anal sex and engage in sexual gratification. Should they be barred from marriage as well?

I might also add that there is no way the statement applies to all homosexuals. Would you be willing to make an exception for those people?

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Yes, a man and woman have never done that...

Not in the US because marriage is something sacred. A divorce isn't just signing a piece of paper, you have to go before a judge and explain WHY you are breaking your covenant. Even an enullment can sometimes be difficult to get.

Right. You're discriminating against them because of their lifestyle. Because you find it objectionable.

No, I am not discriminating. Actions have consequences.

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How did you manage to type this with all that foam splattering the keyboard?

A little spittle fell on the keyboard. But thats because I missed my spit cup.

Spliffdaddy · Mar 31, 2004, 01:31 PM

I can tell you from experience that being married stifles almost ALL sexual activity.

That's why folks like me and that dcolton guy allowed coloreds to marry. To stop 'em from having sex.

Reckon them gays deserve nothing less.

ease off the trigger a bit, dcolton....and give 'em what they're askin for *wink wink*.

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Excuse me, but many straight people have anal sex and engage in sexual gratification. Should they be barred from marriage as well?

I might also add that there is no way the statement applies to all homosexuals. Would you be willing to make an exception for those people?

Smoke and mirrors don't fly very well with me. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not as prevelant as you want it to be among hetero's. Not everyone lives a porn-type lifestyle.

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Not in the US because marriage is something sacred. A divorce isn't just signing a piece of paper, you have to go before a judge and explain WHY you are breaking your covenant. Even an enullment can sometimes be difficult to get.

Actually, I was referring to: "this will give me the opportunity to have a union with some person so I can get some tax benefits. Hell, I will even form a union with a guy if he is rich enough and doesn't expect any form of intimate contact whatsoever! How convienient that would be."

But as for marriage being sacred, that's a religious issue. As far as civil ones are concerned, that's between the two people to decide how 'sacred' it is to them when they enter into that contract.

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, I am not discriminating. Actions have consequences.

You're being unclear. Being homosexual has consequences? Why should being homosexual matter to the government?

Shaddim · Mar 31, 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
AFAIK no same sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts to date. The Judicial Court's deadline is still May 17. If the General Court doesn't face up to it by then, there WILL be marriages anyway for at least a couple of years.

And then we will get to see some real fun should the state decide to divorce people against their will.

Uh no, it'll simply be an annulment. Happens all the time when people get married illegally (bigamy, underage, etc.)

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Smoke and mirrors don't fly very well with me. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not as prevelant as you want it to be among hetero's. Not everyone lives a porn-type lifestyle.

You can't deny homosexuals a civil marriage for reasoning that straight people also violate. That is unfair. It is unequal.

Once again, just because you religion or personal beliefs make homosexuality wrong doesn't make it true or even enforceable.

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
You can't deny homosexuals a civil marriage for reasoning that straight people also violate. That is unfair. It is unequal.

Once again, just because you religion or personal beliefs make homosexuality wrong doesn't make it true or even enforceable.

So if someone vioates a law, either everyone must go to jail or everyone should be free? DOn't follow your logic. How about this...since some people are rich, the government should make sure everyone is rich.

Once again, a lifestyle does not afford you special rights.

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:42 PM

whoopsy... mistake post

Dakar · Mar 31, 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
So if someone vioates a law, either everyone must go to jail or everyone should be free? DOn't follow your logic. How about this...since some people are rich, the government should make sure everyone is rich.

Once again, a lifestyle does not afford you special rights.

Your metaphor doesn't make sense. If two people violate the same law, but only one goes to jail something is wrong. Either both go to jail or both go free.

You're also avoiding my point. How is it not unequal to deny homosexuals civil marriage on reasoning that many (if not the majority) of straights violate?

Third, homosexuals aren't looking for special right. They're asking for right to be joined with those they are involved with same as straight people can do now.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 31, 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Not in the US because marriage is something sacred. A divorce isn't just signing a piece of paper, you have to go before a judge and explain WHY you are breaking your covenant. Even an enullment can sometimes be difficult to get.

AFAIK, most (and maybe all) states have no-fault divorce. The state couldn't care less why you are getting divorced as long as the parties mutually agree. When was the last time you heard of a judge refusing to grant a divorce?

Secondly, you are confusing religion and law. "Covenant" is a religious term. States regard marriage as a form of contract. You also mention an annulment. That's Canon law, not civil law. States don't grant annullments, churches do. Specifically, the Catholic Church.

I'm checking to see if states even recognize annulments, or if you still need a divorce. I haven't taken Canon law, but I know someone who has.

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Dakar:
Your metaphor doesn't make sense. If two people violate the same law, but only one goes to jail something is wrong. Either both go to jail or both go free.

You're also avoiding my point. How is it not unequal to deny homosexuals civil marriage on reasoning that many (if not the majority) of straights violate?

Third, homosexuals aren't looking for special right. They're asking for right to be joined with those they are involved with same as straight people can do now.

I will rephrase it...it is just silly to argue that since (some) hetero couples have anal sex gays should be allowed to marry.

Makes me wonder...is the foundation of gay marriages sex? If you would argue that since heteros *may* have anal sex gays should be allowed to marry - I would think that from your reasoning.

It's funny. Whenever this topic comes up, it is always about benefits, rights and sex. Not once do any of you mention love, covenanents, or responsinilities when it comes to marriage or civil unions. Oh, and I forgot the incessant exploitation of blacks.

I am not avoiding your question. This is where our core belief differs. I don't believe that you gain rights (or priviledges) by choosing a lifestyle.

dcolton · Mar 31, 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
AFAIK, most (and maybe all) states have no-fault divorce. The state couldn't care less why you are getting divorced as long as the parties mutually agree. When was the last time you heard of a judge refusing to grant a divorce?

Secondly, you are confusing religion and law. "Covenant" is a religious term. States regard marriage as a form of contract. You also mention an annulment. That's Canon law, not civil law. States don't grant annullments, churches do. Specifically, the Catholic Church.

I'm checking to see if states even recognize annulments, or if you still need a divorce. I haven't taken Canon law, but I know someone who has.

I believe that NV grants annulments. But, the point I was trying to make, was that although divorces are readily available, there is a reason you have to go before the courts to begin the process. It is a contract, covenant, responsibility, etc. In other words...marriage isn;t a game. It is a serious committment.

By the way, while you are right about the word covenant, I think you realize that I used it for a reason without derailing the discussion into a side debate.

Really hope that at the end of the day we can agree to disagree...I will try not to go into the "amoral" type tirades anymore.