As far as I'm concerned, "gay" is as much a minority as "insert race here"
To say Gays can't Marry is the same as saying "insert race here" Can't Marry...
It's pure bigotry...
As far as Prop 8 goes in CA. If gays can't "Marry" then no one should be able to.
|
Whatchu talken' about Willis?!?!THIS.
Anyone who doesnt think that will fuel a new era of Racism is sorely mistaken.
|
|
Anyone who doesnt think that will fuel a new era of Racism is sorely mistaken.Whatchu talken' about Willis?!?!THIS.
Um no I do not. Why do you?
Anyone who doesnt think that will fuel a new era of Racism is sorely mistaken.
I don't think that. I might be mistaken, but I'll wait and see -- I'm an evidence-based kind of guy.
And don't bother misquoting string theory in support of your assertion... ;P|
|
Anyone who doesnt think that will fuel a new era of Racism is sorely mistaken.I don't think that. I might be mistaken, but I'll wait and see. I'm an evidence-based kind fo guy. And don't bother misquoting string theory in support of your assertion...
Misquote string theory? It aint a misquote when I'm right and you 6 billion are smurfmuffins.
As far as I'm concerned, "gay" is as much a minority as "insert race here"
To say Gays can't Marry is the same as saying "insert race here" Can't Marry...
It's pure bigotry...
As far as Prop 8 goes in CA. If gays can't "Marry" then no one should be able to.
I'd be very much in favor of getting the government out of the business of defining marriage and family, but I'm open to ideas for how to do that in today's era of ubiquitous government.
today's era of ubiquitous government.
Alexander Hamilton is chuckling in his grave.
There is nothing new under the sun.
I'd be very much in favor of getting the government out of the business of defining marriage and family, but I'm open to ideas for how to do that in today's era of ubiquitous government.
I still prefer the solution of the government backing off completely on the subject. No need to define, no need to rationalize. No bonuses, freebies, or gifts from the government for married couples. No penalties either.
With the proper paperwork and such - approvable by any proper lawyer, judge, notary, whatever - pass of ownership, property on death, visitation rights, power of attorney, etc. could and should be filed instead of a governmental marriage license/civil union/what have you. Same process, different paper.
My 2cp.
Same process, different paper.
That's unfortunately been blocked by the myriad amendments specifying that "no benefits or privileges currently attached to marriage shall ever be conferred upon same-sex couples by any governmental authority or agreement, regardless of name."
Same process, different paper.That's been blocked by the myriad amendments specifying that "no benefits or privileges currently attached to marriage shall ever be conferred upon same-sex couples by any governmental authority or agreement, regardless of name."
Again:
I still prefer the solution of the government backing off completely on the subject. No need to define, no need to rationalize.
And whacking those amendments on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and saying "NONOBADDOG".
Maybe a kick into the corner or two for the gov't as a whole.
I'm feeling evil today. Or maybe just apathetic and vicious.
today's era of ubiquitous government.Alexander Hamilton is chuckling in his grave.
There is nothing new under the sun.
:)
Have you ever watched the Hamilton v Jefferson debates on the library channel?
The AFA professor who plays Hamilton ran as the Democrat 2 years ago for this Congressional district.
Have you ever watched the Hamilton v Jefferson debates on the library channel?
Naw, my wife cancelled the cable. Said I watched too many John Wayne movies (not to mention the "Rockford Files").
Same process, different paper.That's unfortunately been blocked by the myriad amendments specifying that "no benefits or privileges currently attached to marriage shall ever be conferred upon same-sex couples by any governmental authority or agreement, regardless of name."
Nineteen such state constitutional amendments, in fact. I don't know about all of them, but the one in Michigan passed with its advocates flagrantly lying about what the thing said in plain English. Their lips said "you can have everything but the M-word" and their laws instead advise the consumption of excrement and subsequent expiration.
Have you ever watched the Hamilton v Jefferson debates on the library channel?Naw, my wife cancelled the cable. Said I watched too many John Wayne movies (not to mention the "Rockford Files").
Hal Bidlack and Clay Jenkinson; I can't find a video online, but these guys rocked!