It Does Or It Doesnt

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

USUAL SUSPECT SEZ FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.

So whats PROP 8 doing in Federal Court if the States get to decide?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Take your dirty diaper off of your face. And stop smearing your poop on the walls.

 

[penandpaper]

Marriage is a state decision. It's in the constitution. It is not federal; however, the point most dismiss is that the legislature of each state has the right and should override the majority if they believe something is discriminatory. Which, of course, is exactly what banning gay marriage is.

 

[stephen55]

Mental fucktard....

Jay BJ is the mental midget who thinks the Constitution is meaningless.

I wonder what the Constitution thinks of Jay BJ?

It doesn't.

That said, he's a mental fucktard who eats momma for lunch. Did you cry when she died?

No wonder.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Well, which is it? Federal Law prevails or the issue is a State Right? So far Gays wanna play both sides.

 

[Liar]

What makes you think Gays is a flock of step marching drones who have no differing opinions on anything? You really that stupid?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What makes you think Gays is a flock of step marching drones who have no differing opinions on anything? You really that stupid?

Becuz they ARE a herd of goose-stepping lemmings.

 

[Liar]

You're cute when you're being a moron. Jimbo want a cracker?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You're cute when you're being a moron. Jimbo want a cracker?

No thank you, Princess.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is at least one federal law regarding marriage - polygamy. There may be more. SCOTUS has also overturned anti-miscegenation laws.

These are not complaints. I am just pointing out that the feds have gotten involved in the past, and they can decide whether or not state laws are contrary to the US Constitution.

 

[Lisa Summers]

James, why do you want to deny gays the misery that straight married people must endure (or not)?

 

[Size13]

James, why do you want to deny gays the misery that straight married people must endure (or not)?

I totally agree...

They should have to put up with the legal crap us heterosexuals do when it comes time for marriage and divorce...

I am into equal opportunity crap, no matter what persuasion you may be.

I am all for homosexual marriage. Let them experience it the way us straight people do...

 

[Lisa Summers]

I totally agree...

They should have to put up with the legal crap us heterosexuals do when it comes time for marriage and divorce...

I am into equal opportunity crap, no matter what persuasion you may be.

I am all for homosexual marriage. Let them experience it the way us straight people do...

Speak for yourself, big boy.

 

[stephen55]

Yet one more reason not to have specific laws.......

It's easy and slightly humorous to question why gay couples would want the right to marry, when straight couples have about a 50% divorce rate (or whatever), go through legal and financial hell with divorces, child custody battles etc. That said, the question for me is one of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law.

In Canada, you simply can't be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. It's chiseled in stone, in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same sex marriage is not so much legal, as it is not illegal. It does make a difference. Individuals in a same sex marriage are entitled to all the benefits the law gives to married people. (Pension benefits, child care, parental leave and such.) By making no reference to the sex of the two people in marriage law, all barriers disappear. Gay couples don't have to go to court to defend their marriage rights because there is no ability for anyone to deny them in the first place. So by making something not illegal (the law remains silent) there's much less to fuss about.

It's so easy for Parliament in Canada to change the law, mostly by simply tossing stuff out, as compared to Congress in the USA, that there is nothing the right wing, fundamentalist intolerants up here can do. They can cry for a return to The Good Old Days all they want. It's not going to happen.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's easy and slightly humorous to question why gay couples would want the right to marry, when straight couples have about a 50% divorce rate (or whatever), go through legal and financial hell with divorces, child custody battles etc. That said, the question for me is one of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law.

In Canada, you simply can't be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. It's chiseled in stone, in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Same sex marriage is not so much legal, as it is not illegal. It does make a difference. Individuals in a same sex marriage are entitled to all the benefits the law gives to married people. (Pension benefits, child care, parental leave and such.) By making no reference to the sex of the two people in marriage law, all barriers disappear. Gay couples don't have to go to court to defend their marriage rights because there is no ability for anyone to deny them in the first place. So by making something not illegal (the law remains silent) there's much less to fuss about.

It's so easy for Parliament in Canada to change the law, mostly by simply tossing stuff out, as compared to Congress in the USA, that there is nothing the right wing, fundamentalist intolerants up here can do. They can cry for a return to The Good Old Days all they want. It's not going to happen.

It's possible for any legislature, including Congress to repeal a law. All they do is vote to repeal it and get the executive to sign off on it and the law has been tossed out. even a Constitutional Amendment can be repealed, by another amendment, and it has happened once. (Prohibition)

One area where there would be no conflict in a same sex divorce would be in child custody, unless the child was adopted by both members of the couple. Both members of a straight couple are the parents of issue of the marriage, so there can be a conflict. Only one member of a gay marriage can be a parent, even though the other may have a very close relationship, and that one gets custody, if he or she wants it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

James, why do you want to deny gays the misery that straight married people must endure (or not)?

My reasons for supporting or opposing any issue are irrelevant unless my intent is to change your mind about the issue, and I dont want to change anyone's mind about same-sex marriage. But since you ask I'll tell you; I oppose Gays because theyre politically monolithic; if I scratch your back you wont return the favor on other issues. There's nuthin in it for me. I'm not interested in abstract nominalizations about baseball, motherhood, apple pie, and Chevrolets; SHOW ME THE MONEY.

That said, all of us live in societies that decide what they will and wont be. No cannibalism in America. If you wanna be a cannibal go to Brazil, Borneo, or Germany. If you want polygamy go where they practice polygamy. Canada doesnt get to decide what goes in America without bloodshed but theyre welcome to start a war over the issue.

And once Americans decide whats what, thats it; the argument is over, get with the program.

 

[Liar]

One area where there would be no conflict in a same sex divorce would be in child custody, unless the child was adopted by both members of the couple. Both members of a straight couple are the parents of issue of the marriage, so there can be a conflict. Only one member of a gay marriage can be a parent, even though the other may have a very close relationship, and that one gets custody, if he or she wants it.

Can full legal parenthood never be granted to a step-parent?

 

[PoppingTom]

No cannibalism in America.

Hard to believe when reading your posts.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Can full legal parenthood never be granted to a step-parent?

Plenty of men are tagged 'parent' by courts, and arent.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Can full legal parenthood never be granted to a step-parent?

A person can adopt a stepchild if the natural parent of the same gender is dead or is willing to have it happen. The latter would be the situation in the case of a sperm donor or surrogate mother or a natural parent who relinquishes parental rights and is absolved of parental responsibilities. Even so, I believe the adoptive parent would be at a disadvantage if there is a custody hearing.

ETA: And, as JBJ says, there have been men who have been designated fathers by courts. In this day of DNA testing, it happens less often, but it still happens, unless he is willing to undergo the expense to prove otherwise.

 

[Lisa Summers]

And once Americans decide whats what, thats it; the argument is over, get with the program.

So, do you support slavery, or do you think it was a GOOD idea for America to change its mind?

 

[Stella_Omega]

My reasons for supporting or opposing any issue are irrelevant unless my intent is to change your mind about the issue, and I dont want to change anyone's mind about same-sex marriage. But since you ask I'll tell you; I oppose Gays because theyre politically monolithic; if I scratch your back you wont return the favor on other issues. There's nuthin in it for me. I'm not interested in abstract nominalizations about baseball, motherhood, apple pie, and Chevrolets; SHOW ME THE MONEY.

Serious question; What do you figure gays need to bribe the straight majority with?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Serious question; What do you figure gays need to bribe the straight majority with?

I dont want anyone to compromise their principles and values; no one is served well when we bend over and grab our ankles all the time. On the otherhand if I'm expected to take a big bite of a shit sandwich I expect others to enjoy a bite as well.

So if I take a bite of same-sex marriage I want your team to back away from its blind allegience to, say, teacher unions and tenure. Or its loyal support of meddling socialworkers. They lead the vanguard that oppresses families.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I dont want anyone to compromise their principles and values; no one is served well when we bend over and grab our ankles all the time. On the otherhand if I'm expected to take a big bite of a shit sandwich I expect others to enjoy a bite as well.

So if I take a bite of same-sex marriage I want your team to back away from its blind allegience to, say, teacher unions and tenure. Or its loyal support of meddling socialworkers. They lead the vanguard that oppresses families.

Okay, you got a deal.

Why didn't you say so sooner?

 

[Liar]

I dont want anyone to compromise their principles and values; no one is served well when we bend over and grab our ankles all the time. On the otherhand if I'm expected to take a big bite of a shit sandwich I expect others to enjoy a bite as well.

So if I take a bite of same-sex marriage I want your team to back away from its blind allegience to, say, teacher unions and tenure. Or its loyal support of meddling socialworkers. They lead the vanguard that oppresses families.

I'm just curious why gay marriage involves you taking a bite out of anything.

How does allowing gays to marry each other affect you?