|
Hey guys, I don't know how many of you out there are fellow Floridians, and I'm sorry if you are, because apparently on top of not being able to vote for the lives of us, we also have a distinct love of needless and stupid legislation to make old people and the hardcore religious nutjobs with a bad education (which seems to be 3/4 of our state) feel better about themselves.
Ammendment 2 is legislation that defines marraige as between one man and one woman.
Let me repeat that so it can sink in, it's a law being passed that does absolutely nothing. FL doesn't recognize gay marraige already, it recognizes civil unions. So this is altering our state constitution to prevent my eventual presidency and the mandatory gay marraige laws that will be passed shortly after I get into office. Apparently some people have been following my political career here on the OTD boards and said, "oh no, this could really happen, we need to ammend our constitution to prevent it."
Please if you are a FL here on these boards and you have two brain cells to rub together, vote no on ammendment 2, and if you aren't feel free to comment.
|
Ammendment 2 is legislation that defines marraige as between one man and one woman.Let me repeat that so it can sink in, it's a law being passed that does absolutely nothing. FL doesn't recognize gay marraige already, it recognizes civil unions.
Well it does outlaw polygamy. I don't know how widespread a problem it is in Florida, but when I lived in Alabama back in the mid-90's it was a growing problem there. And since the incident in Texas brought polygamy back into the spotlight, maybe that is more what it is aimmed at. Personally I think that government should get out of the marriage buisness all together.
My solution: there should be no tax incentives, benefits, or othewise for marriage. Make it a completely religious function and you solve the problem. Also, I love the characterization that anyone who votes for the law are un-educated religious zealots. What do you mean by well-educated? What does it have to do with one's stance on gay marriage? Do you assume that someone with a college degree would vote for the law?
EDIT: I apologize if I am being contentious and antagonistic but I can't stand the arrogance, self-righteousness, and self-importance that permeates the western "educated".
|
|
Agreed. Government has nothing to do with Baptism or Bar Mitzvahs, why should it be involved with Marriage, another religious function? As far as I'm concerned, the government only has the right to register contracts for the long-term good of both parties and society as a whole. If two people (or more I guess - it's their business) want to enter into a relationship and formalize it with a public contract, so be it. IHO we should all be in civil unions. Now if those people also want to go to their religious center and take vows before their god, they should also be able to, and if that religious center - due to it's beliefs - wants to say no, that's between the coupe, their church and their god. But the government has no right to say one relationship is better than the other.
Hell, with 80% (or some astronomically high % like that) of marriages ending in divorce I would think that people wouldn't want to be a part of that.
|
The only law that may be sillier than this one is the "no saggy pants" law that some jurisdictions are trying to pass.
The funniest is the one in Louisiana that mentions a special exemption for plumbers and handymen. No joke.
On a side note: I don't care about polygamy either, be it polygyny or polyandry. Consenting adults can do what they want, as long as the individuals who spawn 35 kids pay for raising them out of their own pockets, rather than hitting up the taxpayers for welfare.
|
|
The only law that may be sillier than this one is the "no saggy pants" law that some jurisdictions are trying to pass.
The funniest is the one in Louisiana that mentions a special exemption for plumbers and handymen. No joke.
On a side note: I don't care about polygamy either, be it polygyny or polyandry. Consenting adults can do what they want, as long as the individuals who spawn 35 kids pay for raising them out of their own pockets, rather than hitting up the taxpayers for welfare.
Agreed, when consenting adults, the problem with some of the polygamy cults that were religiously derived was that the parents were arranging polygamist marraiges for children as young as 14.
As a side note polygamy is allready illegal in the state of FL, so it actually isn't.
|
|
My solution: there should be no tax incentives, benefits, or othewise for marriage. Make it a completely religious function and you solve the problem. [guote] Oh I've been in favor for years that the government not recognize marraige at all, and when people get married they fill out their civil union liscence. leaving marraige to the religious institutions.
Also, I love the characterization that anyone who votes for the law are un-educated religious zealots. What do you mean by well-educated? What does it have to do with one's stance on gay marriage? Do you assume that someone with a college degree would vote for the law?
EDIT: I apologize if I am being contentious and antagonistic but I can't stand the arrogance, self-righteousness, and self-importance that permeates the western "educated".
You're right it is condescending of me, but I honestly get upset when people try to shove their moral views that have nothing to do with public safety or wellbeing on others, and can only assume they don't study history, because history has quite a proven track record of what happens when things like this get started.
The fact is that it is discrimination pure and simple. it's a discriminatory law that doesn't actually do anything and is just being put out there to "protect" a portion of the populations belief of what marraige is, even though it doesn't really protect anything, it just excludes groups. And what about religions that don't believe that marraige is between a man and a woman. You're right not everyone who pushes for such a law is uneducated, however I don't believe it's possible that willingness to vote for this law isn't based on religious perspective.
And for the record (not that you brought it up, you didn't), I'm libertarian, which means I'm politically right leaning. So it's specifically the conservative and "religious" right that I'm rebelling against with my rants, not the right wing as a whole.
But for the record I do personally know uneducated slobs who favor this law. and when I call them uneducated I mean they droped out in high school, didn't get a GED until their 30s uneducated. So when I rant like i did, I have people like them in mind.
|
The only law that may be sillier than this one is the "no saggy pants" law that some jurisdictions are trying to pass.
The funniest is the one in Louisiana that mentions a special exemption for plumbers and handymen. No joke.
On a side note: I don't care about polygamy either, be it polygyny or polyandry. Consenting adults can do what they want, as long as the individuals who spawn 35 kids pay for raising them out of their own pockets, rather than hitting up the taxpayers for welfare.
I like the "Saggy pants" laws. Why do I have to be assaulted with seeing anybody with their entire a$$ hanging out showing off their underwear? Why should my children see that? I am also against women walking around with thongs sticking out of their pants. It's disgusting and I shouldn't need to explain that crap to my children.
On topic....I think that the reasoning behind the government promoting marriages in general is because it supposedly promotes stability in a population. Unfortunately %50 of marraiges end in divorce, so that is a rather archaic measure, although I really like the tax benefits of that and children.
I am also totally for gay marriages. Why should heteros be the only miserable people.
;P
I always tell the kids with the saggy pants that they look like they just took a dump in their pants. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't.
As for the amendment... that's unfortunate. I wish people would concentrate on making their own marriages work instead of trying to make sure that my marriage isn't recognized if I visit their state.
- Ashavan
|
|
I always tell the kids with the saggy pants that they look like they just took a dump in their pants. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't.
As for the amendment... that's unfortunate. I wish people would concentrate on making their own marriages work instead of trying to make sure that my marriage isn't recognized if I visit their state.
- Ashavan
My marraige is recognized and this bill pisses me off by it's very nature. I'm sorry you have to deal with this kind of crap Ashavan.
[sarcasm]Just remember you chose that path when you started having sex that creeps out old people. And maybe if you would stop trying to subvert all youths into becoming homosexuals we wouldn't need to pass these laws to ensure propogation of the species [/sarcasm]
|
|
The only law that may be sillier than this one is the "no saggy pants" law that some jurisdictions are trying to pass.
The funniest is the one in Louisiana that mentions a special exemption for plumbers and handymen. No joke.
On a side note: I don't care about polygamy either, be it polygyny or polyandry. Consenting adults can do what they want, as long as the individuals who spawn 35 kids pay for raising them out of their own pockets, rather than hitting up the taxpayers for welfare.
Well it has been proven that baggy pants require a posture that is ultimately bad to the back leading to problems when they get older. So even though its kinda stupid it could be looked at as pursuing the public safety in the same way as anti-smoking advertisements paid for by the government are.
After all you can't convince a young idiot to stop doing something because it will be bad for them later. Otherwise no-one would smoke. but you can get them to do it less if they know they'll have to pay for it in fines.
I agree that this law sucks though. Tolerance means putting up with something even if you don't like it or agree with it because more than likely someone else is not going to like or agree with something you believe in. There is a reason that tolerate is the root of tolerance. You don't have to like it but you do have to put up with it.
|
|
Voting against 2. Count me in.
Thank you for joining me in this. Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?
|
|
Voting against 2. Count me in.Thank you for joining me in this. Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?
I voted for a similar measure in Utah for two reasons. One was because I hoped that it would prompt our AG to stop riding his Harley and start prosicuting the polygamists who are defrauding the welfare system and finding ways around paying taxes. The second was because it removed any incentives from common law marriges, and said that the only way you get any kind of marrige benefit is if you actually apply for a marrige liscence. I feel that I should add that I also supported a proposed change to the ammendment that would have changed the language from a man and a woman to two consenting adults. I mainly supported it because of the clause that said that no other relationship will be recognized as equal to a liscenced marrige.
Also, I love the characterization that anyone who votes for the law are un-educated religious zealots. What do you mean by well-educated? What does it have to do with one's stance on gay marriage? Do you assume that someone with a college degree would vote for the law?
For whatever reason, support for gay marriage in surveys correlates directly with education level. Maybe that's because those "godless liberal universities" are "corrupting people's values" (as any number of conservative web sites and blogs tell us), or maybe it's because people are more likely to meet and get to know openly gay people in college. Or it could be for any number of other reasons. That covers the education part.
For the religious part, well, I've never seen any valid non-religious reasons for banning gay marriage (I've seen some far stretches at it, but nothing that makes any sense from a secular viewpoint).
|
|
I voted for a similar measure in Utah for two reasons. One was because I hoped that it would prompt our AG to stop riding his Harley and start prosicuting the polygamists who are defrauding the welfare system and finding ways around paying taxes. The second was because it removed any incentives from common law marriges, and said that the only way you get any kind of marrige benefit is if you actually apply for a marrige liscence. I feel that I should add that I also supported a proposed change to the ammendment that would have changed the language from a man and a woman to two consenting adults. I mainly supported it because of the clause that said that no other relationship will be recognized as equal to a liscenced marrige.Voting against 2. Count me in.Thank you for joining me in this. Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?
See that's completely different though, i have no problem with legislation that re-defines marraige as between two consenting adults, in fact I would support it because it helps prevent the abuse of parents who would arrange a marraige of their underage child for whatever reason (because it's not just polygamists that do it) and because the child has parental consent it's legal. But defining it as one man, one woman, isn't writing it to protect children like that, it's writing it to make discrimination against gay marraige governmental policy.
|
|
See that's completely different though, i have no problem with legislation that re-defines marraige as between two consenting adults, in fact I would support it because it helps prevent the abuse of parents who would arrange a marraige of their underage child for whatever reason (because it's not just polygamists that do it) and because the child has parental consent it's legal. But defining it as one man, one woman, isn't writing it to protect children like that, it's writing it to make discrimination against gay marraige governmental policy.I voted for a similar measure in Utah for two reasons. One was because I hoped that it would prompt our AG to stop riding his Harley and start prosicuting the polygamists who are defrauding the welfare system and finding ways around paying taxes. The second was because it removed any incentives from common law marriges, and said that the only way you get any kind of marrige benefit is if you actually apply for a marrige liscence. I feel that I should add that I also supported a proposed change to the ammendment that would have changed the language from a man and a woman to two consenting adults. I mainly supported it because of the clause that said that no other relationship will be recognized as equal to a liscenced marrige.Voting against 2. Count me in.Thank you for joining me in this. Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?
The final proposition did say a man and a woman, and I did vote for it for the reasons I listed. I would have liked it if it had said otherwise, but I felt strongly enough about the polygamy and common law marrige stuff that I help my nose and voted for it. I have been supporting several groups that are working to get rid of the man and woman definition, and if I am lucky enough to get elected to the state legislature when I run in two years, I will be making it a priority to change the law.
|
We have a similar Prop 8 here in California doing the same thing. The last one that passed got nixed by the courts and now this is round 2. :sigh: At least some people have gotten married and taken advantage.
It's a shame we have so many nutjobs that are trying to impose their values on us.
No on Prop 8.
I would not call them nutjobs. Your religious beliefs dictate that marriage is between one man and one woman. Fine. Fantastic. You do not have to allow religious marriages between same sex couples.
However, your religious beliefs do not dictate my laws. Believe me, you do not want my religious beliefs dictating your laws.
|
|
I would not call them nutjobs. Your religious beliefs dictate that marriage is between one man and one woman. Fine. Fantastic. You do not have to allow religious marriages between same sex couples.
However, your religious beliefs do not dictate my laws. Believe me, you do not want my religious beliefs dictating your laws.
That's just because your religious beliefs would have us all making sweet sweet love to gophers and make murderers stay at our grandparents houses.
|
|
That's just because your religious beliefs would have us all making sweet sweet love to gophers and make murderers stay at our grandparents houses.I would not call them nutjobs. Your religious beliefs dictate that marriage is between one man and one woman. Fine. Fantastic. You do not have to allow religious marriages between same sex couples.
However, your religious beliefs do not dictate my laws. Believe me, you do not want my religious beliefs dictating your laws.
And we would all have to have at least one poodle and llama on our person at all times.
That's just because your religious beliefs would have us all making sweet sweet love to gophers and make murderers stay at our grandparents houses.
How is that any worse than what the current religious majority wants to inflict upon us?
|
|
That's just because your religious beliefs would have us all making sweet sweet love to gophers and make murderers stay at our grandparents houses.How is that any worse than what the current religious majority wants to inflict upon us?
Because my grandmother is currently safe, well except from the scourge of gay marraige, she might find herself unwillingly gay married any day now, good thing there's that important vote coming up to protect her.
|
|
There is no one right answer. God didn't descend from the clouds and say:
"Marriage shall be between two consenting adults only. It doesn't matter what gender they are. But they must be 18 or older...ya know, to protect the children and stuff. Oh, and just two. No threesomes. Or foursomes. Or more than that."
And even if God did say that, so what?
I'll be honest, it's the religious aspect of this that bothers me... I'm an atheist, and I do chaffe at laws that use religion as their only substantive reasoning.
- Ashavan
Agreed. Government has nothing to do with Baptism or Bar Mitzvahs, why should it be involved with Marriage, another religious function? As far as I'm concerned, the government only has the right to register contracts for the long-term good of both parties and society as a whole. If two people (or more I guess - it's their business) want to enter into a relationship and formalize it with a public contract, so be it. IHO we should all be in civil unions. Now if those people also want to go to their religious center and take vows before their god, they should also be able to, and if that religious center - due to it's beliefs - wants to say no, that's between the coupe, their church and their god. But the government has no right to say one relationship is better than the other.
I'd put it the other way around. Religious organizations should have nothing to do with people entering into relationships that will involve potential disputes over child custody, medical decision-making, joint property and shared income... all of which are governed by law or have legal recourse to resolve.
Really, that's why government is involved and has been involved since marriage appeared as an institution that involved property rights. It's simply convenient to refer to it as "marriage" rather than civil union. We know, to a fairly great degree, what marriage implies. Civil union is new-speak that must be defined before it really means anything. And that's why I'm all for gay marriage rather than civil unions.
|
|
My solution: there should be no tax incentives, benefits, or othewise for marriage. Make it a completely religious function and you solve the problem. [guote] Oh I've been in favor for years that the government not recognize marraige at all, and when people get married they fill out their civil union liscence. leaving marraige to the religious institutions.
Also, I love the characterization that anyone who votes for the law are un-educated religious zealots. What do you mean by well-educated? What does it have to do with one's stance on gay marriage? Do you assume that someone with a college degree would vote for the law?
EDIT: I apologize if I am being contentious and antagonistic but I can't stand the arrogance, self-righteousness, and self-importance that permeates the western "educated".
You're right it is condescending of me, but I honestly get upset when people try to shove their moral views that have nothing to do with public safety or wellbeing on others, and can only assume they don't study history, because history has quite a proven track record of what happens when things like this get started.
The fact is that it is discrimination pure and simple. it's a discriminatory law that doesn't actually do anything and is just being put out there to "protect" a portion of the populations belief of what marraige is, even though it doesn't really protect anything, it just excludes groups. And what about religions that don't believe that marraige is between a man and a woman. You're right not everyone who pushes for such a law is uneducated, however I don't believe it's possible that willingness to vote for this law isn't based on religious perspective.
And for the record (not that you brought it up, you didn't), I'm libertarian, which means I'm politically right leaning. So it's specifically the conservative and "religious" right that I'm rebelling against with my rants, not the right wing as a whole.
But for the record I do...
The point is you shouldn't rant because when you do you are the one sounding like an uneducated snob.
|
|
There is no one right answer. God didn't descend from the clouds and say:
"Marriage shall be between two consenting adults only. It doesn't matter what gender they are. But they must be 18 or older...ya know, to protect the children and stuff. Oh, and just two. No threesomes. Or foursomes. Or more than that."
And even if God did say that, so what?
Gen. 2:18, 21-24
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Eph. 5:23-32
And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church. And we are his body.
As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.
1 Peter 3:1-5, 7
In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News. Your godly lives will speak to them better than any words. They will be won over by watching your pure, godly behavior.
Don't be concerned about the outward beauty ... You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God ... In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard.
And more importantly:
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
... It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband
Which has been debated for centuries. Interesting enough Jesus doesn't say much about Marriage Himself. Not directly, he went to a wedding, he changed water into wine at the insistence of his Mother but he never said if it was a positive thing or not. St.Paul was very opposed marriage and in fact said that the time was so near no one should marry. Go figure, they also say,history that is, he was so ugly he couldn't get a wife if he wanted to so that might have something to do with it. In truth with a little picking and choosing you can get almost any opinion if you look hard enough and read only what you want.
|
|
a lot of stuff
:/
How do you get that the Apostle Paul was very opposed to marriage? He thought not being married was good in some circumstances but commanded marriage in other circumstances.
As to Jesus not saying much on Marriage, Matthew 5:30-32 and 19:3-6,7-9 would seem to be Jesus approving of marriage and explaining how it should have been understood in the old Testament. The apostle Paul reaffirms Jesus' teaching in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 and Paul, assuming he wrote Hebrews, wrote, "Marriage is honorable among all."
*Cut for Commercial:*
Vote for Callous Jack on the OTD Presidential campaing!
Here, a little Sourvenier!
*Back to standard program...*
|
|
Ezekiel 23
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
I like my God quote better. Doesn't talk about marriage, but makes up for it with the donkey shlongs, kid fiddlin', and what not.
Interesting and tangentially related, Connecticutt's Supreme Court just ruled on gay marriage and has ordered gay marriages recognized in the state.
- Ashavan
|
|
I always tell the kids with the saggy pants that they look like they just took a dump in their pants. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't.
As for the amendment... that's unfortunate. I wish people would concentrate on making their own marriages work instead of trying to make sure that my marriage isn't recognized if I visit their state.
- Ashavan
I was walking behind one kid with his "sag on"...so I loudly "whispered" to my wife..."ewwww...is that a skid mark?" that kid pulled em up real quick and walked off without even glancing back
Ezekiel 23 and some other stuff I shall take out of context
I like my donkey schlongs as much as the next poodle, but I am still not convinced the bible is the word of god.
I also enjoy the irony of a great many people conveniently forgetting that the new testament is suppose to be version 2.0 which supersedes old testament. As I recall, and I admit I am not well versed in the bible, Jesus did not lay down a litany of Levitical law. His message seemed to be more of ‘be excellent to each other’. Which, in my humble opinion, discrimination is not how I would define being excellent to anyone.
I will be voting no on 2. Because it pisses me off that a good friend of mine had to go to Canada to get married. Not that there's anything wrong with Canada, but that's a hell of a schlep for something that should have been handled at the courthouse.
Also, if you donate $25 or more to either www.sayno2.com (Florida) or www.noonprop8.com (California) by October 16th, Dan Savage will respond to any question you send.
The six biggest Savage Love donors to either www.noonprop8.com or www.sayno2 .com will see their letters in print, and everyone who makes a donation of at least $25 to either group—send me your donation confirmation e-mail along with your question—gets a personal reply from yours truly. The cutoff date for eligible letters is October 16. And if my readers in Canada want to play along, too, you're invited to send proof of a donation to someone, anyone, running against Stephen Harper.
Another also, the way Amendment 2 is worded, it could not only bar Civil Unions, but also anything else 'equivilent to marriage', including health benefits for unmarried straight couples and common-law marriages.
I was walking behind one kid with his "sag on"...so I loudly "whispered" to my wife..."ewwww...is that a skid mark?" that kid pulled em up real quick and walked off without even glancing backI always tell the kids with the saggy pants that they look like they just took a dump in their pants. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't.
As for the amendment... that's unfortunate. I wish people would concentrate on making their own marriages work instead of trying to make sure that my marriage isn't recognized if I visit their state.
- Ashavan
LMAO. I have to remember this one.
|
|
I will be voting no on 2. Because it pisses me off that a good friend of mine had to go to Canada to get married. Not that there's anything wrong with Canada, but that's a hell of a schlep for something that should have been handled at the courthouse.
Also, if you donate $25 or more to either www.sayno2.com (Florida) or www.noonprop8.com (California) by October 16th, Dan Savage will respond to any question you send.
The six biggest Savage Love donors to either www.noonprop8.com or www.sayno2 .com will see their letters in print, and everyone who makes a donation of at least $25 to either group—send me your donation confirmation e-mail along with your question—gets a personal reply from yours truly. The cutoff date for eligible letters is October 16. And if my readers in Canada want to play along, too, you're invited to send proof of a donation to someone, anyone, running against Stephen Harper.Another also, the way Amendment 2 is worded, it could not only bar Civil Unions, but also anything else 'equivilent to marriage', including health benefits for unmarried straight couples and common-law marriages.
Hey Ross where in FL do you get your game on?
That's just because your religious beliefs would have us all making sweet sweet love to gophers
Is there any other kind?
First Madonna, now donkeys? Is there any leg you won't grab onto?
* humping David Fryer's leg *
Huh, wha?
|
|
Is there any such thing as common law marriage? I ask because it's commonly thought that there is under UK law, too, but in actual fact there is no such thing and cohabitees have no joint rights whatsoever. As much of US law originated with the UK, I wonder if htis myth has also been transplanted.
Edit: Link to relevant article on UK legal situation.