Actually, subby, he said that gay marriage burdens small business.

He may have a point, if you substitute the word "business" with "minds."

A funny argument, since many businesses already offer benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of "marriage" as a term.

makes a better case for denying spousal benefits across the board than anything, if 'ZOMGS IT COSTS SMALL BIDNESS' is really the strategy here.

Can we all agree that Civil Unions are the way to go? The gays get their 14,000 rights. The Christians maintain the "sanctity of marriage". Problem solved.

thenateman: Can we all agree that Civil Unions are the way to go? The gays get their 14,000 rights. The Christians maintain the "sanctity of marriage". Problem solved.

A better solution is to cut out the religious middle-man in marriages altogether and just make the marriage license a 'civil union recognition fee.' Then everyone has the same rights and Republican Jesus still gets to deny a religious rite to some of his brothers.

Bloody William: A funny argument, since many businesses already offer benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of "marriage" as a term.

Indeed. At IBM provides same-sex partner benefits except in states that recognize same-sex marriage. There, same-sex couples are expected to get married like anybody else.

Damned hippy, anti-business IBM.

Joliet_Jake: A better solution is to cut out the religious middle-man in marriages altogether and just make the marriage license a 'civil union recognition fee.'

that's the part about this that just leaves me confused.

what you describe is already the case.

the secular, civil document required for state recognition - that has no intrinsic religious connotation what so ever - just has the word 'marriage' on it.

is semantics reeeeeaaaaaalllly that important?

"I got it! We can stop gay marriage by showcasing just how poor our health care system is set up! Surely this will not cause any kind of legislation that will change THAT!"

heap: is semantics reeeeeaaaaaalllly that important?

Ask them

You know, equal pay for women and african americans burdens small businesses more then gay marriage.

just sayin

Joliet_Jake: A better solution is to cut out the religious middle-man in marriages altogether and just make the marriage license a 'civil union recognition fee.' Then everyone has the same rights and Republican Jesus still gets to deny a religious rite to some of his brothers.

Are you proposing that ministers should no longer perform marriages?

Abolish state recognition of marriage.

Watching Michael Steele try to improve the Republican Party is a lot like watching Wile E. Coyote try to catch the Roadrunner.

Just as amusing, and just as successful, only with less explosives and ACME products. Unfortunately.

Stepqhen: You know, equal pay for women and african americans burdens small businesses more then gay marriage.

just sayin

So do safety regs and overtime pay.

thenateman: Joliet_Jake: A better solution is to cut out the religious middle-man in marriages altogether and just make the marriage license a 'civil union recognition fee.' Then everyone has the same rights and Republican Jesus still gets to deny a religious rite to some of his brothers.

Are you proposing that ministers should no longer perform marriages?

No, I'm saying the state should no longer perform marriages.

Marriage burdens men.

Joliet_Jake: No, I'm saying the state should no longer perform marriages.

How does that help anything, unless the agenda is to piss off religious people? They should keep "marriage" as it is, and simply create a new thing called "civil unions" so gays get access to the rights and privileges of marriage.

/I still guffaw at the idea that marriage gives you rights. As a single person, do I have fewer rights than the married folks?

thenateman: Are you proposing that ministers should no longer perform marriages?

Can't speak for him, but I certainly will propose that the spiritual and social implications of marriage ceremony as performed by a minister should no longer have any connection with the legal and financial implications of "marriage" as it pertains to government licensing and associated paperwork.

Want the ceremony but not the paperwork? Fine.

Want the paperwork without the ceremony? That's fine too.

Totally different and completely independent systems.
=Smidge=

i guess i just don't get the constant rejoinders to 'remove religion from state recognition of unions' as if it is a contextual crux - when that is already the case.

you do not need a minister, a mufti, bishop, deacon, or priests approval to get married now. there is no religious test, approval process, or even authority.

i don't see why the topic constantly circles back to pretending it does, then hinges removing that as if it fixes something. it doesn't, it's already the case.

just let gays sign the same damned document your parents did. it was secular, civil, and absolutely non-religious when they did, too.

Smidge204: Want the ceremony but not the paperwork? Fine.

Want the paperwork without the ceremony? That's fine too.

again...that's already the case.

you can sign your marriage document, and have full recognition from the state...two windows down from where you pay your parking tickets.

Remove all Republicans: Brown v. Board of Education: separate is inherent unequal.

Separate physical facilities were inherently unequal. This has nothing to do with physical facilities. If the underlying rights are equal, then we literally are dealing with "semantics". It all depends on what proponents of "gay marriage" are really shooting for -- equality under the law or equality in the eyes of society? Those are two very, very different things. Equality in the law can be mandated, whereas equality in the eyes of society can never be mandated.

We need to show the religious freaks that they have lost. Marriage does not belong to them and this nation believes that everyone has a right to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender.

If a state like freaking California, liberal as it is, says "yes" to recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, then the "nation" does not really believe that everyone has a right to "marry" everyone they want. I'm sorry, I'm sure that upsets you, but that's just the way it is.

thenateman: Can we all agree that Civil Unions are the way to go? The gays get their 14,000 rights. The Christians maintain the "sanctity of marriage". Problem solved.

I agree.

But gays won't be satisfied until they've convinced everyone that their 'union' is the same as a heterosexual one.

Steele is a boob, but he's partly right; legalization will be costly in ways people haven't even imagined yet.

The amount of fraud and probably even criminality that will be perpetrated by two dudes or two women claiming to be married will come in all shapes and sizes, and in truckloads.

Not that our media will report it.

But of course I'm just being a paranoid homophobe.

emilyek_1: Steele is a boob, but he's partly right; legalization will be costly in ways people haven't even imagined yet.

The amount of fraud and probably even criminality that will be perpetrated by two dudes or two women claiming to be married will come in all shapes and sizes, and in truckloads.

When I had a roommate, we'd joke that we should get "married" for income tax purposes. Now I have no roommate other than my cat, so for income tax purposes I can hardly wait until gay marriage inevitably becomes marriage to animals.

To elaborate on Board v. Brown (text found here), the underlying rights of blacks were being infringed upon because the facilities, while "separate and equal", deprived them of equal educational opportunities. If the underlying rights are exactly the same between state civil unions and the rights granted to heterosexual marriage, then all we are talking about is really a matter of semantics and language ownership.

Andy Iceprey: Actually, subby, he said that gay marriage burdens small business.

He may have a point, if you substitute the word "business" with "minds."

I think you are the one missing the point.

thenateman: /I still guffaw at the idea that marriage gives you rights. As a single person, do I have fewer rights than the married folks?

When you are married, you get certain rights to your partner's property, benefits, etc. A simple example: John married Jane and Jane is eaten by wolves; she also dies intestate. John is first up on the inheritance list because they are married and that is his right. John and Jack are long time companions and would get married but the state where they live does not permit man love, and Jack is attached by a flock of seagulls and dies intestate. John *could* very well be SOL if Jack's family decides they never really approved of Jack and John's getting it on. He'd have no right as Jack's surviving spouse to claim his piece of Jack's estate. You do not get more rights than a single person, you get certain rights with respect to your position of being in a state-sanctioned union.

Realpolitik420:
If a state like freaking California, liberal as it is, says "yes" to recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, then the "nation" does not really believe that everyone has a right to "marry" everyone they want. I'm sorry, I'm sure that upsets you, but that's just the way it is.

You're a complete farking moran if you think California is all one thing or all another. Ever BEEN here, Mr. Reality, US? Drive through Roseville shouting that Obama is not a muslim and see how many dead skunks you get pelted at your vehicle. Park outside of the walmart in the Antelope Valley with a "no on proposition 8" bumper sticker and then count how many 300-lb whales wearing a crucifix you see sneering at you.

thenateman: Can we all agree that Civil Unions are the way to go? The gays get their 14,000 rights. The Christians maintain the "sanctity of marriage". Problem solved.

That depends. Civil unions are acceptable, provided that everyone gets civil unions through the state, and marriage is abolished as a civil institution. No "civil unions for gays, but marriage for straights." That's separate but equal, and unacceptable.

Of course, under a universal civil union regime, churches can still perform private marriage ceremonies, and discriminate between gays and straights as they see fit. But gays and straights must have the same civil rights under the same name. Period.

Name me one "Small business" with less than 10 employees that isn't a chain that gives health care to any of it's employees.

Realpolitik420: To elaborate on Board v. Brown (text found here), the underlying rights of blacks were being infringed upon because the facilities, while "separate and equal", deprived them of equal educational opportunities. If the underlying rights are exactly the same between state civil unions and the rights granted to heterosexual marriage, then all we are talking about is really a matter of semantics and language ownership.



How about this picture? Does it strike you as offensive and unacceptable, or is it merely a matter of "semantics and language ownership"?

Crockett: Just as amusing, and just as successful, only with less explosives and ACME products. Unfortunately.

The Republican Party hates good small businesses that provide Bat-man Suits and Rocket Skates to desert-dwelling anthropomorphic canines!

Realpolitik420: To elaborate on Board v. Brown (text found here), the underlying rights of blacks were being infringed upon because the facilities, while "separate and equal", deprived them of equal educational opportunities. If the underlying rights are exactly the same between state civil unions and the rights granted to heterosexual marriage, then all we are talking about is really a matter of semantics and language ownership.

No, we are not. We next enter the realm of how others must then change their rules to account for unions versus marriage. Let me put your logic to another test: Would you say then that it is legal to say Marriage is for whites, Narriage for blacks, Parriage for Asians, Rarriage for those who want to mix things up, etc? Would you still consider that a case of semantics?

When you segment you leave the door open for creating inequalities either as-is or at a later date, thus you fail at the basic test of applying equal protection under the law.

captain_heroic44: That depends. Civil unions are acceptable, provided that everyone gets civil unions through the state, and marriage is abolished as a civil institution. No "civil unions for gays, but marriage for straights." That's separate but equal, and unacceptable.

Of course, under a universal civil union regime, churches can still perform private marriage ceremonies, and discriminate between gays and straights as they see fit. But gays and straights must have the same civil rights under the same name. Period.

I guess I don't understand why giving equal rights under the guise of "civil unions" doesn't solve the problem. Here's a constitutional scholar who is OK with the idea.

thenateman: Can we all agree that Civil Unions are the way to go? The gays get their 14,000 rights. The Christians maintain the "sanctity of marriage". Problem solved.

"Separate but equal" isn't.

People argue Brown v. Board as if is the end-all and be-all of the fight for equality. They conveniently forget a little thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those people can get a brain, morans.

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: You're a complete farking moran if you think California is all one thing or all another. Ever BEEN here, Mr. Reality, US? Drive through Roseville shouting that Obama is not a muslim and see how many dead skunks you get pelted at your vehicle. Park outside of the walmart in the Antelope Valley with a "no on proposition 8" bumper sticker and then count how many 300-lb whales wearing a crucifix you see sneering at you.

You're an idiot. I currently live in CA and have my entire life. The state is largely made up of liberal coastal areas and cities and conservative inland areas and Orange County. The state, on the whole, is much more liberal than anywhere in the South or the Midwest -- and if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman upon vote of the residents, then the claim that the nation supports gay marriage isn't true. I'm sorry, it's just not despite how much that may upset people. Think about it -- even our President has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Our popular President for God sakes.

captain_heroic44: That's separate but equal, and unacceptable.

See here is where you are in error. The separate = unequal discussion in Brown applied because the physical facilities -- i.e., the manifestation of the supposed equal rights -- were inherently unequal because it would rob blacks of educational opportunities afforded to whites. That type of analysis does not apply if we are talking about calling something "XYZ" and not physical manifestations and separation of races.

Biological Ali: How about this picture? Does it strike you as offensive and unacceptable, or is it merely a matter of "semantics and language ownership"?

See my discussion about physical facilities being manifestation of rights as opposed to what you call something. That doesn't mean it's inherently unequal so long as the rights are provided in an equal matter. That wasn't the case in Brown, though it easily could be the case in a civil union.

Employer-provided health insurance burdens small business. And that's the God's-honest truth. Reams of forms and hours spent on something that has jack-shiate to do with your core competency. Meanwhile, the big guy has a full HR department doing health care enrollments full time, and the leverage to extract a much better deal from his insurer.

Plus, then there's that sinking feeling when one of your employees children comes down with some horrible disease. You know your small group plan will quadruple in price. You'll feel like a heel for firing her. But, you pretty much have to do that, drop insurance for everyone, or close your doors.

I know several small businessmen. And not a one who would jump for farking *JOY* to be rid of that evil burden.

Realpolitik420: Remove all Republicans: Brown v. Board of Education: separate is inherent unequal.

Separate physical facilities were inherently unequal. This has nothing to do with physical facilities. If the underlying rights are equal, then we literally are dealing with "semantics". It all depends on what proponents of "gay marriage" are really shooting for -- equality under the law or equality in the eyes of society? Those are two very, very different things. Equality in the law can be mandated, whereas equality in the eyes of society can never be mandated.

We need to show the religious freaks that they have lost. Marriage does not belong to them and this nation believes that everyone has a right to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender.

If a state like freaking California, liberal as it is, says "yes" to recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, then the "nation" does not really believe that everyone has a right to "marry" everyone they want. I'm sorry, I'm sure that upsets you, but that's just the way it is.

After a multi-million dollar ad campaign, and after it became clear, the whole state is nearly mortified.

Let's also not forget in the 6 months hence, I think 3 more states (Maine, Vermont and IOWA) have given gay marriage the OK either via legal decision or legislation, plus the OK's of New York City (giving legal protection to those married elsewhere), the pending approval of New York State (just waiting for a bill to be brought to the governor) and other states willing to investigate it as a way to bring economic prosperity.

People don't want it, but it's right. It will be done. Just let process take it's time, and enjoy the ride.

thenateman: captain_heroic44: That depends. Civil unions are acceptable, provided that everyone gets civil unions through the state, and marriage is abolished as a civil institution. No "civil unions for gays, but marriage for straights." That's separate but equal, and unacceptable.

Of course, under a universal civil union regime, churches can still perform private marriage ceremonies, and discriminate between gays and straights as they see fit. But gays and straights must have the same civil rights under the same name. Period.

I guess I don't understand why giving equal rights under the guise of "civil unions" doesn't solve the problem. Here's a constitutional scholar who is OK with the idea.

Your reading comprehension skills don't appear to be very strong. Let me bold for you the relevant portion.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Name me one "Small business" with less than 10 employees that isn't a chain that gives health care to any of it's employees.

Mine. That said, if I had any gay employees, and our state allowed gay marriage or civil unions, I'd hapilly pony up. I'd also cover a comitted same-sex partnership without state recognition (if it was allowed by the insurance company). I also cover a family plan for my employee who has kids and is divorced.

EABOD, Steele, you don't speak for my business.

Ex Parte Gilligan: No, we are not. We next enter the realm of how others must then change their rules to account for unions versus marriage.

If they are granted the exact same rights, there is no change necessary. Call it marriage for heterosexual couples, call it civil unions for gay couples. If the underlying rights are exactly identical, then there is no separate but inherently unequal situation. If that solution isn't acceptable to people, then it's because they are not really searching for "equal rights" for gay people, but instead are searching for equality in the eyes of society. Try as you might, but you can't legislate that. You can mandate equal rights under the law and then prosecute those who violate those laws.

Ex Parte Gilligan: Let me put your logic to another test: Would you say then that it is legal to say Marriage is for whites, Narriage for blacks, Parriage for Asians, Rarriage for those who want to mix things up, etc? Would you still consider that a case of semantics?

Yes, so long as the underlying rights are the same. I'd call it stupid but not illegal. It would be a matter of semantics.

thenateman: Can we all agree that Civil Unions are the way to go? The gays get their 14,000 rights. The Christians maintain the "sanctity of marriage". Problem solved.

Yeah, segregation, that's a great and new idea that's never been tried.

Andy Iceprey: Actually, subby, he said that gay marriage burdens small business.

He may have a point, if you substitute the word "business" with "minds."

No, he said spousal benefits burden small business, and that Republicans should use that to object to same sex unions. Read the article again if you didn't see that.

Oh just do something. Give gays all the rights they deserve and, if you insist on being a dick, call it "schmoopledorf" if you want. The non-crazy portion of society is just going to call it "marriage" and "married" anyway for the sake of simplicity. Then the onus will be on the fundies to get over it.

RemyDuron: Yeah, segregation, that's a great and new idea that's never been tried.

FAIL if you think that is segregation. You aren't very bright, are you?

Realpolitik420:
You're an idiot. I currently live in CA and have my entire life. The state is largely made up of liberal coastal areas and cities and conservative inland areas and Orange County. The state, on the whole, is much more liberal than anywhere in the South or the Midwest -- and if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman upon vote of the residents, then the claim that the nation supports gay marriage isn't true. I'm sorry, it's just not despite how much that may upset people. Think about it -- even our President has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Our popular President for God sakes.



Actually you prove once again that you're a complete idiot, by once again saying it is "largely" one thing when the truth is it is a mixed bag like any other place. Prop 8 is a perfect example, as are prop 209, prop 187, prop 227, three strikes laws... clearly california is nothing but a bunch of freaky hippies.

Just because we are progressive on some things doesn't mean the populace here is immune to the kind of fear mongering that gets fascist shiat like that passed everywhere else.

seriously, did you even see the mormon-funded ads supporting prop 8?

Gays? In MY marriage? It's more likely than you think.

now go away tool.

Realpolitik420: See my discussion about physical facilities being manifestation of rights as opposed to what you call something. That doesn't mean it's inherently unequal so long as the rights are provided in an equal matter. That wasn't the case in Brown, though it easily could be the case in a civil union.

I wasn't talking about Brown. Indeed, the facility referenced in the picture I posted (a water fountain) provides the same quality regardless of whether it's used by a black person or a white person, as both of them would be drinking the same water. If one were to still find this unacceptable (as I do), one would concede that what one "calls something" may well have a significance beyond mere semantics.

So I repeat my question: would you, or would you not, find it acceptable?

Realpolitik420: Ex Parte Gilligan: No, we are not. We next enter the realm of how others must then change their rules to account for unions versus marriage.

If they are granted the exact same rights, there is no change necessary. Call it marriage for heterosexual couples, call it civil unions for gay couples. If the underlying rights are exactly identical, then there is no separate but inherently unequal situation. If that solution isn't acceptable to people, then it's because they are not really searching for "equal rights" for gay people, but instead are searching for equality in the eyes of society. Try as you might, but you can't legislate that. You can mandate equal rights under the law and then prosecute those who violate those laws.

Ex Parte Gilligan: Let me put your logic to another test: Would you say then that it is legal to say Marriage is for whites, Narriage for blacks, Parriage for Asians, Rarriage for those who want to mix things up, etc? Would you still consider that a case of semantics?

Yes, so long as the underlying rights are the same. I'd call it stupid but not illegal. It would be a matter of semantics.

There are decades of caselaw stating that separate is inherently unequal. The sole motive for calling gay unions "civil unions" and straight unions "marriages" is to put them in unequal categories. That's why it's an unacceptable solution.

The acceptable solution is civil unions for all, with marriage abolished as a civil institution. Churches would then be free to marry who they want on their own terms.

hyperspacemonkey: Andy Iceprey: Actually, subby, he said that gay marriage burdens small business.

He may have a point, if you substitute the word "business" with "minds."

No, he said spousal benefits burden small business, and that Republicans should use that to object to same sex unions. Read the article again if you didn't see that.

Just more fuel for the universal healthcare argument. As a small business owner, I'd love to be out of the insurance business. BCBS is a PITA, one I'd happily do away with given the chance.

It's discrimination. It's just that simple. "Oh, but it'll be just like marriage.. well, because you're relationship freaks all the bigots out, we'll have to call it something else. Sorry, maybe you should try not being born gay next time."