PDA

View Full Version : New York Becomes 6th State to Pass Gay Marriage.....



MMC
06-25-2011, 05:37 AM
..

Conley
06-25-2011, 05:49 AM
Well, it's not the first state this has happened in. There have been a few others that have come and gone, right? Like California and I want to say Vermont? It seems like laws legalizing medical marijuana, these laws come and go. I don't know what to think about them any more.

MMC
06-25-2011, 06:26 AM
..

Conley
06-25-2011, 10:22 AM
good points all mmc

i believe california has ruled decisively against gay marriage. for a while san francisco was allowing it but i believe that stopped some time ago. i'm not sure when california will go over the issue again. as i understand it was mostly mormon money that funded the yes on 8 (the state proposition) campaign

GRUMPY
06-25-2011, 03:05 PM
good points all mmc

i believe california has ruled decisively against gay marriage. for a while san francisco was allowing it but i believe that stopped some time ago. i'm not sure when california will go over the issue again. as i understand it was mostly mormon money that funded the yes on 8 (the state proposition) campaign

clearly when given the opportunity to speak to this issue the people of even the left coast rejected gay marriage only to have their vote usurped by the judiciary....correct??? as for ny, no ballot referendum just a cabal of liberal leftists in the legislature.....most people probably do not care, still this will not legitimize something that is fundamentally flawed....

Mister D
06-25-2011, 04:03 PM
good points all mmc

i believe california has ruled decisively against gay marriage. for a while san francisco was allowing it but i believe that stopped some time ago. i'm not sure when california will go over the issue again. as i understand it was mostly mormon money that funded the yes on 8 (the state proposition) campaign

clearly when given the opportunity to speak to this issue the people of even the left coast rejected gay marriage only to have their vote usurped by the judiciary....correct??? as for ny, no ballot referendum just a cabal of liberal leftists in the legislature.....most people probably do not care, still this will not legitimize something that is fundamentally flawed....


Yeah, the Cali vote really caused some ideological confusion for the libs. Blacks churches and the black vote were, as I recall, instrumental in the initiatives defeat. But what to do!? ;D Tell your constituency that they're ignorant bigots?

MMC
06-25-2011, 05:46 PM
..

Conley
06-25-2011, 08:47 PM
good points all mmc

i believe california has ruled decisively against gay marriage. for a while san francisco was allowing it but i believe that stopped some time ago. i'm not sure when california will go over the issue again. as i understand it was mostly mormon money that funded the yes on 8 (the state proposition) campaign

clearly when given the opportunity to speak to this issue the people of even the left coast rejected gay marriage only to have their vote usurped by the judiciary....correct??? as for ny, no ballot referendum just a cabal of liberal leftists in the legislature.....most people probably do not care, still this will not legitimize something that is fundamentally flawed....


the liberal judge overturned something but i thought eventually it remained that gay marriage was not legal. i'll have to look into that.

where it stands now:

"On August 4, 2010, federal judge Vaughn R. Walker declared the ban unconstitutional but temporarily stayed his ruling.[4] On August 6, 2010, both sides submitted legal briefs to Judge Walker arguing for or against a long-term stay of the ruling.[5] On August 12, 2010, Judge Walker had scheduled to lift his stay. On August 16, 2010, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing.[6] On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal.[7] The court also ordered both appeals calendared for oral argument during the week of December 6, 2010, in San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit has now requested the California Supreme Court to rule on an issue related to whether the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the case.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

MMC
06-25-2011, 10:02 PM
..

Conley
06-25-2011, 10:23 PM
like so much else, i think what obama said about gay marriage before he got elected is different from what he is saying now. although since he is running for reelection he'll probably spin it again.

MMC
06-25-2011, 10:44 PM
..

GRUMPY
06-26-2011, 03:26 PM
like so much else, i think what obama said about gay marriage before he got elected is different from what he is saying now. although since he is running for reelection he'll probably spin it again.

obama is well beyond spin, he is a liar and a fraud.....

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 05:55 PM
People didn't elect Obama because he was for or against gay marriage. There really are more pressing issues. It shows that liberals have talent for priority, and that people who support a liberal view are from different walks of life. As a matter of fact, it's probably not much different than what a conservative would have done. I've met liberals who are completely against abortion, and they hate Obama. Obama shows blind support because he has an image to protect, and a mainstream line to walk. Does that make him a sellout, or does it make him successful at his career?

As for the issue at hand, I could care less. And that's how it should be. Good news is there's a pointless debate which is now over and done with, at least in one part of the country.

Danno9
06-26-2011, 05:56 PM
Another case of the desires of the people being overridden by politicians. I'm guessing the divorce lawyers are the real winners here.

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Another case of the desires of the people being overridden by politicians. I'm guessing the divorce lawyers are the real winners here.


The desires of the people don't apply in this case because it is a split issue, and a constitutional one. The question becomes that of fairness, and the protection of liberty. Which side is trying to impede the freedoms of the other side the most, and is the cause constitutional?

Danno9
06-26-2011, 06:11 PM
I believe we live in a society where the majority is supposed to rule. The Constitution??? Since when did politicians start following the Constitution?

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 06:13 PM
I believe we live in a society where the majority is supposed to rule. The Constitution??? Since when did politicians start following the Constitution?


I know a few people who would accuse you of being a liberal for saying that.

Danno9
06-26-2011, 06:16 PM
Zing....that one hurt :D I am in no way a liberal. I do have room for opposing views. Liberals do not.

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 06:18 PM
Zing....that one hurt :D I am in no way a liberal. I do have room for opposing views. Liberals do not.


You seem so certain of yourself.

Mister D
06-26-2011, 06:24 PM
I believe we live in a society where the majority is supposed to rule. The Constitution??? Since when did politicians start following the Constitution?


I know a few people who would accuse you of being a liberal for saying that.


Spunk, I think that (bold) was sarcasm. ;)

MMC
06-26-2011, 06:38 PM
..

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 06:57 PM
Personally I think it is all about the money they think will be infused into the system with Divorces of those that are gay. More to infuse the garbage divison of the court. As well as those little fees for docs and I.D.'s etc etc......


A likely motive, and no doubt a part of the mindset of divorce lawyers, but I don't think it quite speaks to the central theme of the issue at large.

MMC
06-26-2011, 07:20 PM
..

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 07:24 PM
I believe we live in a society where the majority is supposed to rule. The Constitution??? Since when did politicians start following the Constitution?


I know a few people who would accuse you of being a liberal for saying that.


Spunk, I think that (bold) was sarcasm. ;)


I think my response was fairly safe, and interpretively versatile. ;)

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 07:27 PM
Hiya Spunk.....my question would be why doesn't it apply. These same judges are at rallies for politicians. Some of these judges were activists. Some of hese judges belong to groups of the same so called charitable organizations.

Same rich-ass corporate lobbyists that set up fund-raisers and events. Helping those judges names to remain within the conscience of the politician. See where I was going with this. :D


Then let's be glad they were able to have their evil way on such a harmless issue.

Danno9
06-26-2011, 08:29 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.

Mister D
06-26-2011, 08:34 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.


Even if he's not it gives the appearance of bias. He should have recused himself.

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 08:39 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.


It could be considered equally bias if a judge had ruled who is not gay. It could also be considered that the non-gay judge might have voted the same way as the gay judge.

Captain Obvious
06-26-2011, 08:41 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.

Mister D
06-26-2011, 08:43 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


They should just give gays the same privileges under another name and call it a day. Seems like a good compromise to me.

Danno9
06-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Spunkloaf you are correct but the appearance of bias was obvious. As was said, he should have recused himself. To be honest I could care less if gays want to get married. The lawyers will have a feeding frenzy. I worry more about judges legislating from the bench.

Captain Obvious
06-26-2011, 08:51 PM
I heard a clip on NPR when the shit started hitting the fan over this ruling. These knobs were whining about "why can't gay judges make good decisions" - like they have zero idea of non-bias and arms length.

It's not that gay judges can't make decisions, it's the aura of inherent bias that's the issue.

Conflicts of interest are a huge factor in the legal process, and if these fucking twats can't understand that...

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 09:02 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


Suppose for the sake of argument that a rottweiler showed up at your house. In a world where dogs could speak cognitively he started verbally harassing you about politics, and you realize you now literally have a dog in this fight. How would you stand on gay marriage?

O0

>:D

Captain Obvious
06-26-2011, 09:05 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


Suppose for the sake of argument that a rottweiler showed up at your house. In a world where dogs could speak cognitively he started verbally harassing you about politics, and you realize you now literally have a dog in this fight. How would you stand on gay marriage?

O0

>:D


Is the rot gay?

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 09:36 PM
Spunkloaf you are correct but the appearance of bias was obvious. As was said, he should have recused himself. To be honest I could care less if gays want to get married. The lawyers will have a feeding frenzy. I worry more about judges legislating from the bench.


I actually do worry about that too. And yes I can see how there is an obvious appearance of bias. But we're speaking in terms of conflicts of interest, here. Can you really consider a person's sexuality as a point of interest? It's not the same as being bought out by a lobbyist or being connected to an entity which will profit from the judge's own decision. The decision did not afford the judge anything more or less than anybody else it afforded. It only expanded the right to marry for everybody, including heterosexuals, so that an individual is able to marry one person of the same sex if they so please.

To those who say "Next comes goat fucking." To anyone else entertaining the assumption that this is just opening the door to acceptance of unorthodox and nasty relationships. To those people I'll ask you to do two things.

1. Define an unorthodox and nasty relationship in creative detail so we can put it on an infinite list of things we should never allow.
2. Be glad that millions of people don't put pressure on Washington for the right to fuck goats, and never will.

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 09:37 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


Suppose for the sake of argument that a rottweiler showed up at your house. In a world where dogs could speak cognitively he started verbally harassing you about politics, and you realize you now literally have a dog in this fight. How would you stand on gay marriage?

O0

>:D


Is the rot gay?


The rot wont say.

Captain Obvious
06-26-2011, 09:37 PM
Goat fucking is (or was up until recently if it's been outlawed) legal in the state of Washington and a few others.

Captain Obvious
06-26-2011, 09:39 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


Suppose for the sake of argument that a rottweiler showed up at your house. In a world where dogs could speak cognitively he started verbally harassing you about politics, and you realize you now literally have a dog in this fight. How would you stand on gay marriage?

O0

>:D


Is the rot gay?


The rot wont say.


The rot want say if the rot is gay?

Hey, hey - anyway.

What's the rot doing at my doorstep anyway?

Did he come to play for the day?

spunkloaf
06-26-2011, 09:56 PM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


Suppose for the sake of argument that a rottweiler showed up at your house. In a world where dogs could speak cognitively he started verbally harassing you about politics, and you realize you now literally have a dog in this fight. How would you stand on gay marriage?

O0

>:D


Is the rot gay?


The rot wont say.


The rot want say if the rot is gay?

Hey, hey - anyway.

What's the rot doing at my doorstep anyway?

Did he come to play for the day?


The rot wont say if he's straight or if he's gay
He doesn't want to play all hours of the day
And he won't go away. "What's your take on this, pray?"
"If you had to choose a way, is gay marriage okay?"

Danno9
06-27-2011, 12:58 AM
Is that goat thing something else Barney Frank is working on?

spunkloaf
06-27-2011, 01:01 AM
Wouldn't doubt it. Those goat fuckers think they special or sumthin.

Mister D
06-27-2011, 11:07 AM
Personally, I'm neither here nor there on gay marriage.

Mostly because I have no dog in this fight.


Suppose for the sake of argument that a rottweiler showed up at your house. In a world where dogs could speak cognitively he started verbally harassing you about politics, and you realize you now literally have a dog in this fight. How would you stand on gay marriage?

O0

>:D


Is the rot gay?


The rot wont say.



I want closure to this Rottweiler thing. >:( Is he packin' or not?

Conley
06-27-2011, 11:51 AM
yah srsly...this is the best thread so far on the new board.

i want to know what happens with captain, the dog, and the goat.

if it rhymes even better. >:D

GRUMPY
06-27-2011, 12:37 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.


It could be considered equally bias if a judge had ruled who is not gay. It could also be considered that the non-gay judge might have voted the same way as the gay judge.

how does a straight judge profit from a ruling against gay marriage.....spunk check out the standard for recusal....

Conley
06-27-2011, 12:39 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.


It could be considered equally bias if a judge had ruled who is not gay. It could also be considered that the non-gay judge might have voted the same way as the gay judge.

how does a straight judge profit from a ruling against gay marriage.....spunk check out the standard for recusal....


if he's taking contributions from or involved with a "family / marriage defense" lobbying group perhaps...

GRUMPY
06-27-2011, 12:52 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.


It could be considered equally bias if a judge had ruled who is not gay. It could also be considered that the non-gay judge might have voted the same way as the gay judge.

how does a straight judge profit from a ruling against gay marriage.....spunk check out the standard for recusal....


if he's taking contributions from or involved with a "family / marriage defense" lobbying group perhaps...

that is obvious there is a difference in the case at hand....without being involved in a gay marriage defense fund the judge and his partner had a vested interest in the outcome and stood to financially profit....further it might prove informative to read the reasoning of this court....it is not founded in law....
regardless, this is a states issue....if newyorkers want to sanction gay marriage so be it and of course the courts should respect the wishes of the electorate in cali as well....
this is about legitimizing something that common sense tells us is fundamentally askant....further, this is just another effort by libs/progressives etc....to deconstruct this nation by attacking the values and traditions, threads in the societal fabric or cloth if you will of this nation.....marriage is an institution centered about children, family and inheritance/lineage....this nation is served by stable committed relationships of one man and one woman for the purpose of family and raising children.....and no it is not the institution of marriage that has failed us it is we that have failed ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation.....

Mister D
06-27-2011, 01:52 PM
The Ninth Circuit Court (notoriously one of the most liberal courts in the nation) judge that invalidated the votes of the people of California is gay. Hmmmmm.....no bias there.


It could be considered equally bias if a judge had ruled who is not gay. It could also be considered that the non-gay judge might have voted the same way as the gay judge.

how does a straight judge profit from a ruling against gay marriage.....spunk check out the standard for recusal....


if he's taking contributions from or involved with a "family / marriage defense" lobbying group perhaps...

that is obvious there is a difference in the case at hand....without being involved in a gay marriage defense fund the judge and his partner had a vested interest in the outcome and stood to financially profit....further it might prove informative to read the reasoning of this court....it is not founded in law....
regardless, this is a states issue....if newyorkers want to sanction gay marriage so be it and of course the courts should respect the wishes of the electorate in cali as well....
this is about legitimizing something that common sense tells us is fundamentally askant....further, this is just another effort by libs/progressives etc....to deconstruct this nation by attacking the values and traditions, threads in the societal fabric or cloth if you will of this nation.....marriage is an institution centered about children, family and inheritance/lineage....this nation is served by stable committed relationships of one man and one woman for the purpose of family and raising children.....and no it is not the institution of marriage that has failed us it is we that have failed ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation.....


I agree on the age old purpose of marriage. I think the concept of a gay marriage only makes sense to some people now because our perceptions of marriage have changed. It's no longer a bridge between the past and the future. It's all about ME and MY personal fulfillment.

MMC
06-27-2011, 01:57 PM
..

Mister D
06-27-2011, 02:20 PM
You know these liberals play the double-standard with this issue. Due to the fact that they allegedly are for programs that supports others. When they come at me with this issue I ask what is wrong with with one institution dedicated solely to bringing together men and women and bridging the gap between the sexes. So why the direct attack on what the definition of marriage is anyways? Make them explain it!

To me it was a design to make money off what was natural in the first place. Expanding the institution would be just like an Elite Corporatist thinks.


I agree. The burden of persusaion is on the shoulders of gay activists. Moreover, I wonder if they would accpet a simple compromisde: you get all the privileges of marriage but under a different name.

Conley
06-27-2011, 02:56 PM
It gets lost in the debate a lot, but I imagine less outspoken homosexuals would like to be able to marry for the benefits it provides heterosexuals -- health benefits, easier banking with join accounts, easier tax returns, medical rights (visitation in hospitals for example) and so on. I think that's reasonable.

If only there were a way to eliminate the religious and societal impact of marriage from this debate and still offer these rights. For example, it should be that all 'traditional marriages' should work as civil unions in the eye of the law / government, and that gays and straight couples who want to can just get a civil union (with proof of commitment) to provide the same advantages as traditional couples. I may be misusing the term civil union but hopefully you guys catch my drift.

Mister D
06-27-2011, 03:02 PM
It gets lost in the debate a lot, but I imagine less outspoken homosexuals would like to be able to marry for the benefits it provides heterosexuals -- health benefits, easier banking with join accounts, easier tax returns, medical rights (visitation in hospitals for example) and so on. I think that's reasonable.

If only there were a way to eliminate the religious and societal impact of marriage from this debate and still offer these rights. For example, it should be that all 'traditional marriages' should work as civil unions in the eye of the law / government, and that gays and straight couples who want to can just get a civil union (with proof of commitment) to provide the same advantages as traditional couples. I may be misusing the term civil union but hopefully you guys catch my drift.


First of all, that gangsta is looking at me pretty hard. He about to get smoked. >:(

I think that's reasonable too.

I think you can eliminate a lot of that stuff by compromising as you suggest. It all seems to get hung up on a single word.

Conley
06-27-2011, 03:05 PM
:D :D :D

Don't be afraid of the black man D. ;)

Conley
06-27-2011, 04:55 PM
Spunkloaf you are correct but the appearance of bias was obvious. As was said, he should have recused himself. To be honest I could care less if gays want to get married. The lawyers will have a feeding frenzy. I worry more about judges legislating from the bench.


Exactly...great point. This is happening all over, and in my mind at least gay marriage is a very minor concern compared to this.

MMC
06-27-2011, 08:47 PM
..

Mister D
06-27-2011, 09:14 PM
Traditional marriage.....hmmmm, what is traditional marriage and from what perspecive is this based upon?


A traditional marriage would be between a male and a female. It is based on the perspective of all of recorded history. I can't think of any society that married same sex couples. This is true even of societies more open to homosexuality like ancient Greece.

MMC
06-27-2011, 09:50 PM
..

spunkloaf
06-27-2011, 10:05 PM
You know these liberals play the double-standard with this issue. Due to the fact that they allegedly are for programs that supports others. When they come at me with this issue I ask what is wrong with with one institution dedicated solely to bringing together men and women and bridging the gap between the sexes. So why the direct attack on what the definition of marriage is anyways? Make them explain it!

To me it was a design to make money off what was natural in the first place. Expanding the institution would be just like an Elite Corporatist thinks.


I agree. The burden of persusaion is on the shoulders of gay activists. Moreover, I wonder if they would accpet a simple compromisde: you get all the privileges of marriage but under a different name.

Fair enough. How about mayridge? Gayridge?

Conley
06-27-2011, 11:31 PM
You know these liberals play the double-standard with this issue. Due to the fact that they allegedly are for programs that supports others. When they come at me with this issue I ask what is wrong with with one institution dedicated solely to bringing together men and women and bridging the gap between the sexes. So why the direct attack on what the definition of marriage is anyways? Make them explain it!

To me it was a design to make money off what was natural in the first place. Expanding the institution would be just like an Elite Corporatist thinks.


I agree. The burden of persusaion is on the shoulders of gay activists. Moreover, I wonder if they would accpet a simple compromisde: you get all the privileges of marriage but under a different name.

Fair enough. How about mayridge? Gayridge?


I vote gaybridge.