Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[MK]

This is why we have to improve our education system.  Some people are still emerging out of it intensely self-unaware

Great liberal social engineering.   Teach our children that's its ok to be homosexual?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is why we have to improve our education system.  Some people are still emerging out of it intensely self-unaware

Great liberal social engineering.   Teach our children that's its ok to be homosexual?

Isn't it?

[Lunar]

Or at least that you're a weirdo if you start proclaiming the end of the world is near if they do that.

 Or at least put you around enough people that will give you the heads up.

Somebody's got to teach you that you're weird if you don't use toilet paper.  If your parents don't, I think some guided teasing in school about your poopy hands could help a lot, yaddamean?  No, probably not.

[afleitch]

This is why we have to improve our education system.  Some people are still emerging out of it intensely self-unaware

Great liberal social engineering.   Teach our children that's its ok to be homosexual?

Actually, the 'social engineering' part is telling them that it's somehow not okay. That's where man intervenes.

[Alcon]

Liberals using The Full Faith and Credit Clause to force homosexual marriages upon other
states.    Digusting, and will make many people angry which isn't a good thing for gay rights.

There's always going to be some degree of backlash when a minority opinion begins to move toward the majority.  There already is.  People don't change their opinions without stimuli; raising the issue (even if it causes backlash) is a form of stimulus.

There are better and worse balances.  But either way you're forcing a majority position on a minority, whether it be at the state or personal level.  The only difference is in the clustering, if you get what I mean.

Sodom & Gomorrah = The united states in 20 years.

I don't understand why you so strenuously objected to labels of homophobia and then say something like that

[MK]

Liberals using The Full Faith and Credit Clause to force homosexual marriages upon other
states.    Digusting, and will make many people angry which isn't a good thing for gay rights.

There's always going to be some degree of backlash when a minority opinion begins to move toward the majority.  There already is.  People don't change their opinions without stimuli; raising the issue (even if it causes backlash) is a form of stimulus.

There are better and worse balances.  But either way you're forcing a majority position on a minority, whether it be at the state or personal level.  The only difference is in the clustering, if you get what I mean.

Sodom & Gomorrah = The united states in 20 years.

I don't understand why you so strenuously objected to labels of homophobia and then say something like that

Sometimes i believe Alcon thinks he can change my mind on gay marriages. Just a feeling I have when  reading his posts.

He's the only one who doesn't attack me personally when debating the issue.  Maybe its by design because some people you can't yell at or insult to win their trust.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I like what Bill O said about this in that its going to happen the liberals states will pass it, and the conservative states wont. End result you turn more people against gay rights then before.

Great a Country divided.

No, a tipping point will be reached, and eventually, even if it takes 20 years, the Federal Government will intervene based on the "full faith and credit clause" and require that all states recognize Gay marriages performed in Gay marriage states. So, Jane and Jill in Montgomery might have to fly to Vegas to get hitched, but Alabama has to recognize it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that flies in the face of how that clause has been interpreted for over two centuries now.  All the full faith and credit clause does is if Nevada and Alabama both have gay marriage statutes, a couple can get married in Nevada, move to Alabama and not have to get remarried in Alabama to remain married.  If Alabama does not recognize gay marriage, then the full faith and credit clause does not force it to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(emphasis added by me)

To the extent that the full faith and credit clause operates with respect to gay marriages, it will be that ancillary rights such as inheritance and child custody that are created by a gay marriage in another State will be required to be respected in those States that do not recognize gay marriages.  However, forcing Alabama to give gay couples tax benefits available only to married people is beyond the scope of the full faith and credit clause.

[Ebowed]

Does Abercrombie support it?

Yeah, he would.  Pretty liberal guy.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why is yet another thread discussing whether it is okay to stick certain orifices within certain organs and whether or not that it is okay for the state to give a backing to such a relationship gone on for an exhausting 36 pages. Because of some trollish kid whose arguments is so circular and illogical they end up crashing into each other? Isn't the best strategy to ignore him, he's clearly full of guff and can't admit being wrong. Further proof this forum is addicted to this topic, its probably the orifice-organs element I mentioned above.

[Lunar]

Why is yet another thread discussing whether it is okay to stick certain orifices within certain organs and whether or not that it is okay for the state to give a backing to such a relationship gone on for an exhausting 36 pages. Because of some trollish kid whose arguments is so circular and illogical they end up crashing into each other? Isn't the best strategy to ignore him, he's clearly full of guff and can't admit being wrong. Further proof this forum is addicted to this topic, its probably the orifice-organs element I mentioned above.

This thread is usually about the advancement of gay marriage across the country, rather than debating about whether the world's going to end.

sometimes a court jester or two shows up for a few pages, but the thread gets back to course once the entertainment is over

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why is yet another thread discussing whether it is okay to stick certain orifices within certain organs and whether or not that it is okay for the state to give a backing to such a relationship gone on for an exhausting 36 pages. Because of some trollish kid whose arguments is so circular and illogical they end up crashing into each other? Isn't the best strategy to ignore him, he's clearly full of guff and can't admit being wrong. Further proof this forum is addicted to this topic, its probably the orifice-organs element I mentioned above.

This thread is usually about the advancement of gay marriage across the country, rather than debating about whether the world's going to end.

sometimes a court jester or two shows up for a few pages, but the thread gets back to course once the entertainment is over

*Looks back over thread*

Ah yes, I see now. Okay fair enough thread.

Though there is *another* one on this very topic a bit back which goes on for 20 pages. The "Cheney Lied" thread so far has 2 posts; thanks to Kellar this one has expanded by a couple of pages in the time since the Cheney thread was posted. Organs-Orifices again.

[Alcon]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

I'm not entirely convinced he's 100% to troll.  He has done some of it here, but I try to play it safe when accusing someone of being purified trollocity.  Better to be wrong that way than the other way around, I guess

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Besides, this issue is the hot one in the culture wars right now.  Abortion's been largely static for close to two decades now, with little chance of any change, especially with Obama making the Supreme Court nominations.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Besides, this issue is the hot one in the culture wars right now.  Abortion's been largely static for close to two decades now, with little chance of any change, especially with Obama making the Supreme Court nominations.

That that is the case shows that the culture wars are over; the middle soft-liberal ground has won. This was not an issue on the table 20 years ago. (Actually it often seems to me that the Republicans were the ones trying to promote this as a national issue as to win votes in 2004; which shows that maybe Rove was a genius after all, he helped the gay marriage cause. But then again I didn't pay much attention to this issue in the states until 2004 so maybe wrong.)

[MK]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

I'm not entirely convinced he's 100% to troll.  He has done some of it here, but I try to play it safe when accusing someone of being purified trollocity.  Better to be wrong that way than the other way around, I guess

That's right oppose gay marriage for whatever reasons and you are labled a troll or bigoted.  Regardless of my view I must bend to your will and accept gay marriages.   


Bill O'Reilly explains it best -

"The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. Because they won this public relations war, you can expect to see the racist, bigot label marketed in other controversial situations. Already, abortion zealots are branding pro-life people "anti-woman" and "anti-privacy." The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won't pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer. "

Here on Atlas its troll - branding.

[Smash255]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

I'm not entirely convinced he's 100% to troll.  He has done some of it here, but I try to play it safe when accusing someone of being purified trollocity.  Better to be wrong that way than the other way around, I guess

That's right oppose gay marriage for whatever reasons and you are labled a troll or bigoted.  Regardless of my view I must bend to your will and accept gay marriages.   


Bill O'Reilly explains it best -

"The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. Because they won this public relations war, you can expect to see the racist, bigot label marketed in other controversial situations. Already, abortion zealots are branding pro-life people "anti-woman" and "anti-privacy." The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won't pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer. "

Here on Atlas its troll - branding.

Bill O'Reilly and explains it best NEVER belongs in the same sentence.  What an embarrassment to Long Island.

[Wiz in Wis]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

I'm not entirely convinced he's 100% to troll.  He has done some of it here, but I try to play it safe when accusing someone of being purified trollocity.  Better to be wrong that way than the other way around, I guess

That's right oppose gay interracial marriage for whatever reasons and you are labled a troll or bigoted.  Regardless of my view I must bend to your will and accept gay interracial marriages.   


Bill O'Reilly explains it best -

"The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. Because they won this public relations war, you can expect to see the racist, bigot label marketed in other controversial situations. Already, abortion zealots are branding pro-life people "anti-woman" and "anti-privacy." The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

So the gay interracial marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won't pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer. "

Here on Atlas its troll - branding.

There... FTFY

[Meeker]

Could we keep this thread focused on news regarding gay marriages/civil unions and take the endless debate where neither side will ever convince the other elsewhere?

[Rob]

Bill O'Reilly and explains it best NEVER belongs in the same sentence.  What an embarrassment to Long Island.

Hey, he's just representing the Westbury section of Levittown.

[Smash255]

Bill O'Reilly and explains it best NEVER belongs in the same sentence.  What an embarrassment to Long Island.

Hey, he's just representing the Westbury section of Levittown.

LOL, very true.  I guess since that place doesn't exist, we don't have to claim him as part of Long Island.

[Holmes]

Could we keep this thread focused on news regarding gay marriages/civil unions and take the endless debate where neither side will ever convince the other elsewhere?

Yay, there's another thread for that now. This thread is free again.

So, uh... shall we call it Rhode Island Of Marriage Discrimination now instead of "Providence Plantations"?

[Landslide Lyndon]

What's going on with New Jersey?
I thought that was supposed to be the next target.

[Brittain33]

What's going on with New Jersey?
I thought that was supposed to be the next target.

No movement before elections this November.

[Keystone Phil]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20090604_Pa__Senate_to_weigh_contrasting_measures_on_gay_marriage.html

Looks like we might get a showdown here in terms of a Constitutional amendment. It's Leach (one of the most liberal members of the legislature) vs. Eichelberger (one of the most conservative members of the legislature). If it comes to a public vote, the latter will win.

I'm a bit torn on this. I don't support a federal Constitutional amendment but a state constitutional amendment is acceptable. That being said, we already have a law that establishes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The good news is that even Leach admits he doesn't think his bill would become law any time soon so many that will cause Eichelberger to back away from this for awhile (I'm not holding my breath though).

I'd rather we avoid the debate and vote and keep the law we already have.