If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   "Remember that petition we signed to give supermarkets liquor licenses? Yeah, it turns out we were actually banning gay marriage..."   (boston.com) divider line 989
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

26333 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2005 at 7:49 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



989 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-30 09:19:35 AM
Ooh, I should jump in more often!

stain
merits no reply

eraser
dunno. But does it take such a major societal change to allow two non-married persons to own property in a tenancy by the entirety?

truth is, I don't really care, the whole damn world's going down the shiathole, this is just one more step along the way.
 
2005-12-30 09:19:54 AM
sezzme: Will someone PLEASE explain to me the logic that these people have... "If a gay couple can get married, it destroys the marriages of otherwise perfectly-functional straight couples"?!!

Well, it's like this - marriage licenses are like fishing or hunting licenses. They only hand out so many each year. So if them queers can get hitched, since they're such tidy folk, they'll organize a rush to city hall early in the season. That way, they get all the licenses. Then when the STRAIGHT folk get around to marryin', there won't be no licenses left, and the straight folk will have to wait until next seaso-huh? What's that?


Oh, never mind.
 
2005-12-30 09:20:19 AM
More_Like_A_Stain

Yup.
My partner and I send Christmas cards out every year with a new picture of our little family:)
 
2005-12-30 09:20:27 AM
Note: not a comprehensive list of the negative effects
 
2005-12-30 09:21:04 AM
crypt0z0ic

>I do not know what is funnier; the fact that people still believe a petition (most likely signed several times by the same person, or one person using a fictional name) works.. <

FWIW, I started a petition in support of a little-known bill. I presented it to my Senator, discusses its merits, and he's signing on as a co-sponsor. I consider it a success.
 
2005-12-30 09:21:06 AM
DrSpaceMonkey: so when the adult child moves out he can take half his parents' stuff? Pose the same question with roommates. I've shared expenses with roommates before but that's very different from the all-encompassing sharing I do with my husband.

I'm amazed I didn't see my idiot sister's name on the petition. Her second husband works with a gay guy who openly cheats on his now-spouse when travelling. My sister believes that since their kind worked so hard for the privilege it should be more sacred than a strait marriage. Amazing.
 
2005-12-30 09:22:37 AM
"knowthyneighbor.org"
In my opinion publishing information about the people who signed this petition is a violation of their privacy simply because the "gays" are upset with them. Making this a retalitory move. THe name of the website is inviting trouble.

Maybe all Gays should have to register so I know if your living in my neighborhood too.
 
2005-12-30 09:22:37 AM
"Will of the people should prevail or this isn't a democratic society."

A) This isn't a democratic society. It's a democratic republic. Republic being the noun in that phrase, democratic describing the form of republic. A democracy would be very different. See 'C' for further details
B) If the "will of the people" ruled, slavery would never have been banned (since "people" didn't include blacks then).
C) Our constitution and system goverment were designed to allow the will of the majority to be done - but only in such a manner as this will does not unduly harm the minority. If 95% of the people in the US wanted to ban Islam, it would still be unconstitutional, and unless something was badly broken, would not happen.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen, though; there's a lot about our government that's been broken in the past few decades...
 
2005-12-30 09:25:42 AM
It use to be illegal to have sex if you weren't married due to pettitians and popular demand.

It's now legal.

It use to be illegal to be gay due to pettitians and popular demand.

It's now legal.

It is now becoming illegal to have a gay marriage due to pettitians and popular demand.

It's going to be legal someday (soon I hope, can't wait for my lesbian neighbors!).

The US government has told the church to suck it twice when it comes to sex issues, they're going to do it again, just wait.

'Nuff said.

//flap, flap, flap...
 
2005-12-30 09:25:46 AM
Baelz

Will of the people should prevail or this isn't a democratic society. Personally I am all for equal rights for everyone regardless of who they want to marry, but (and this is the kicker) if the majority legally pass a law banning this then it's time to move on.

Civil rights trump the rule of the majority. They have since the very beginning. A majority could voluntarily vote to negate freedom of speech, but you would still possess the right regardless of the will of the majority.

The only relevant question is whether or not homosexual marriage should be considered a civil right. I've yet to hear a cogent argument against the presumption that it should.
 
2005-12-30 09:29:51 AM
eraser8
....Can two non-married persons own property in a tenancy by the entirety?


You can put whatever you want on the deed provided it doesn't conflict with anything previously stated that 'runs with the land'....
 
2005-12-30 09:29:51 AM
OregonVet

Reminds me of how the law allowing marijuana was passed in Colorado. Not just a petition, but a law. Battered wives portrayed on billboards with the tagline "support prop 4" or whatever. So people were duped into believing they were helping battered women when the law actually was to legalize mj.

I live in Colorado. I don't recall seeing any of those billboards. More to the point, there was extensive news coverage of the proposition, so no one could reasonably claim ignorance.

And finally, it was a medical marijuana initiative, not an initiative to legalize pot carte blanc. Perhaps you are confusing this with the recent Denver initiative?

At any rate, the initiative passed by a wide margin and it is insulting to suppose that the people who voted for it were ignorant of its intent.
 
2005-12-30 09:30:18 AM
FARK_the_poor! writes: dunno. But does it take such a major societal change to allow two non-married persons to own property in a tenancy by the entirety?

The answer to the question, as you might have guessed, is NO: tenancy by the entirety* is reserved to married couples. But you are missing the point: your Sowell piece was a big lie. You bought into that lie and reproduced it here to deceive the citizens of Farkistan.

Part of the reason the world is going down the shiathole, as you so elegantly stated, is the unscrupulousness of people that would allow them to post a clearly deceptive argument simply because it promotes their prejudices.

As for a major societal change, I cannot credit your position. How is society profoundly affected merely by the union of two persons of the same gender?

* Tenancy by the entirety is "the ownership of property, real or personal, tangible and intangible, by a husband and wife together. In addition to the four unities of time, title, interest and possession, unity of person must exist. The husband and wife are said to be 'seized as one person.' Neither is allowed to alienate any part of the property so held without consent of the other. The survivor of the marriage is entitled to the whole property. A divorce severs the tenancies by the entirety and usually creates a tenancy in common."
 
2005-12-30 09:31:53 AM
Certainly an instance to keep in mind when relying on survey data.

How does this have anything to do with survey data?
 
2005-12-30 09:33:20 AM
OregonVet writes: You can put whatever you want on the deed....

A tenancy by the entirety requires a unity of person. It is available ONLY to married couples. Its protections cannot be reproduced by other tenancies.
 
2005-12-30 09:34:21 AM
Quick Solution to all this:

1. Make marriage a religious institution, not a state sanctioned one. Allow people to create civil unions, recognized by the state, in what ever combination they wish as long as all are consenting and of age.

2. Make a Constitutional amendment allowing states to NOT recognize civil unions from another state, should they so choose.
 
2005-12-30 09:36:24 AM
Gay marriage will be legal in the US in ten years and we will look back on this time and at those of you who oppsed it as the backwards, freedom hating, ignorant, bigots that you are.
 
2005-12-30 09:39:05 AM
The irony of all this is that for most people it's a battle of words. Many people are willing to allow the idea of "civil unions" but are opposed to equating a gay marriage with a biological marriage that produces children (or an infertile male:female partnership).

If the gay lobby would accept that terminology they would have a chance of getting laws passed. Instead they want to wave a red flag in the face of religious/conservative groups.

Meanwhile, we're starting to hear from the polygamists....
 
2005-12-30 09:39:13 AM
And so it shall be put to a vote.

People's will and all that, isn't that what you libs wanted in 2002
 
2005-12-30 09:39:56 AM
When gay marriages are outlawed, only criminals will have gay marriages.

...or something...
 
2005-12-30 09:40:00 AM
thanks for clearing that* up, eraser.

And your prejudice is that I am a bigot, as I do not agree with your point of view on this matter.

Now eraser will say "no, you are a bigot because you are homophobic" or some such, and we can go on forever.

But like I said, I really don't care, it's gonna happen, likely as "civil unions", which is probably ok. Although in many ways, it is a restriction on freedoms, as pointed out in the linked column.

/that's all I was trying to say, now I'm gonna go home and beat my wife.
 
2005-12-30 09:40:03 AM
AgeOfReason writes: we will look back on this time and at those of you who oppsed it as the backwards, freedom hating, ignorant, bigots that you are.

True. But, by then, no one will admit to having opposed it. At least no one will admit to it publicly.

After all, how many people do you see today advertising their opposition to integration or to interracial marriage?
 
2005-12-30 09:40:13 AM
Have any of you democracy, "rule of the majority" people ever takne a farking civics class?
 
2005-12-30 09:41:40 AM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Now about that "mouth-breathing knucklehead"; would that be the screaming right wing one, or the screaming left wing one? Because they all pretty much sound the same to me.

That would be the bible thumping, hate monger who is screaming about how something that doesn't affect the lives of anyone but the actual participants, will destroy the fabric of society. Maybe the statement of yours that I quoted does not represent your feelings on the matter. Maybe it was just an observation (and an accurate one, at that) on your part. I just felt that it was incomplete, as stated. Please feel free to replace all instances of you/your with whatever descriptor that you feel is appropriate. My post was not necessarily directed at you, personally. Your quote was simply the handiest. However, the rest of my post stands. I do feel that this "ban gay marriage" agenda is being led by the lowest common denominator. Their tactics seem to favor fear, and deception.
 
2005-12-30 09:41:45 AM
Marriage is a religious institution, government should not be involved in it. That's the problem. The word "marriage" has religious connotations and religious restrictions and that is why people object.



Because they object does not mean that they are hateful. It means that they have religious beliefs that preclude the use of the term marriage for homosexual unions. This is because marriage in the United States springs from their religion originally. I do not want homosexual marriage for that religious reason, but I am in favor of civil union and legal equality.



Government should specifically recognize legal unions, and that is it. It has no business overseeing the Christian version of marriage or providing licenses for it. It needs to get out of the marriage business completely and stick to secular legal concepts.



That way, everyone can have their legal protection and can then leave the term "marriage" up to the Catholics, Hindus, Baptists, Satanists, or whoever has a specific religious marriage definition.



That will eliminate many objectors from the mix like myself. Then it will only leave those who are opposed to homosexuals and not terminology. On the other side it will leave those who want to force their views on religion rather than just receive equal protection. Two groups I don't care about at all.
 
2005-12-30 09:42:05 AM
Buffalo77: People's will and all that, isn't that what you libs wanted in 2002

...but...but...Democracy only really works when people vote the way we think they should. Otherwise, democracy was subverted by ignorance, lies, and tampering. Didn't you know that?
 
2005-12-30 09:43:05 AM
"knowthyneighbor.org"
In my opinion publishing information about the people who signed this petition is a violation of their privacy simply because the "gays" are upset with them. Making this a retalitory move. THe name of the website is inviting trouble.


If someone wanted to keep that kind of informaton private (even though it is already public information), they shouldn't be giving it out to strangers asking them to sign a petition.

Maybe all Gays should have to register so I know if your living in my neighborhood too.

It's you're, but either way that's a stupid idea.
 
2005-12-30 09:43:27 AM
FARK_the_poor! writes: And your prejudice is that I am a bigot...

I never called you a bigot. But if I had, I would hardly think that it would be a prejudiced assignment.

What you should have taken from my post is that I think you're dishonest.
 
2005-12-30 09:43:48 AM
eraser8:

After all, how many people do you see today advertising their opposition to integration or to interracial marriage?

I live in Lexington, KY and we have an African American head coach, so I see way more racism than I thought possible in modern society. I hear the the jokes that are told at bars, and the way the word "blacks" is pronounced.
 
2005-12-30 09:43:57 AM
oh except one last thing eraser. I don't believe JTRS requires any type of union.

/This really is fun. Next time I'll take the pro-fag side.
 
2005-12-30 09:44:26 AM
Animatronik:

If the gay lobby would accept that terminology they would have a chance of getting laws passed. Instead they want to wave a red flag in the face of religious/conservative groups.


Separate but equal, got it.
 
2005-12-30 09:44:48 AM
Animatronik

That's not quite true. There are some states working to ban gay civil unions also. So, it's beyond semantics and on to mean spiritedness dressed up as moral certitude.
 
2005-12-30 09:45:25 AM
SurfaceTension: 2. Make a Constitutional amendment allowing states to NOT recognize civil unions from another state, should they so choose.

No amendment necessary - the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by BJB does this already.
 
2005-12-30 09:45:49 AM
Have any of you democracy, "rule of the majority" people ever takne a farking civics class?

No. We just hate farking queers.
 
2005-12-30 09:46:17 AM
I never called you a bigot

you're right eraser, we never got that far.
 
2005-12-30 09:46:32 AM
FARK_the_poor! writes: I don't believe JTRS requires any type of union.

Joint tenancies can be partitioned. Tenancies by the entirety cannot be. That's why they're special.
 
2005-12-30 09:47:37 AM
Nazis riding dinosaurs, people! NAZIS RIDING DINOSAURS!!!

*runs screaming from the thread*
 
2005-12-30 09:47:45 AM
arkansas:

The word "marriage" has religious connotations and religious restrictions and that is why people object.


The word has nothing to do with religion, it is about property rights. Xianity does not own that word. Either marriage for all or marriage for none. Of course that is per the government, I could give a flying fark what your POS church wants to do.
 
2005-12-30 09:47:45 AM
Defense of Marriage Act

Defense from what?
Never could figure that one out.
 
2005-12-30 09:48:10 AM
2005-12-30 09:40:03 AM eraser8 [TotalFark]

If you accept the proposition that all races are equal, which hopefully we all do, then all marriages are equal regardless of race. If you accept the proposition that all marriages are intended to include male:female copulation, then putting the p in the bumhole is not the same, regardless of race. there really is no comparison, it's invidious to compare sex between races to a union based exclusively on anal sex.

/Historically, marriages have been (and in most states still are) NULL and VOID if they are never consummated heterosexually, 1:1.

//20 years from now, I will feel the same way

///I DO favor civil unions that legally recognize a gay partnership as equivalent to heterosexual in most respects.

////Why is marriage such a holy grail anyway??? You guys make a big deal about the divorce rate to justify your position.


AgeOfReason writes: we will look back on this time and at those of you who oppsed it as the backwards, freedom hating, ignorant, bigots that you are.

True. But, by then, no one will admit to having opposed it. At least no one will admit to it publicly.

After all, how many people do you see today advertising their opposition to integration or to interracial marriage?
 
2005-12-30 09:48:25 AM
An important issue in the fight for gay marriage, is the right to visit one's spouse in hospital. Often, hospitals won't allow visits from anyone other than "family", so if your long term gay partner is in emergency and dying, it's T.S. for you.

Gay marriage and civil unions woulds correct this injustice.
 
2005-12-30 09:49:00 AM
I really can not understand why so many people spend so much energy on something that is none of their business.
 
2005-12-30 09:49:51 AM
smeegle: Defense of Marriage Act

Defense from what?


Duh - Commie-pinko-druggy-fags.

/Bets their parties are wicked.
 
2005-12-30 09:50:25 AM
AgeOfReason: The word has nothing to do with religion, it is about property rights. Xianity does not own that word. Either marriage for all or marriage for none. Of course that is per the government, I could give a flying fark what your POS church wants to do.



Hooray! Way to have an open mind and respect the beliefs of others!
 
2005-12-30 09:50:57 AM
I say let the gays marry, just not in a church. So how long till we allow Wilber to marry Mr. Ed? How long till we allow a Brother to marry his sister?
/Slippery slope
/you people are really smart but lack common sense.
 
2005-12-30 09:51:47 AM
Can't stand when people complain about the courts. Isn't one of the reasons for the independance of the judiciary to protect the minority from the majority?

Can't say I am surprised that a large number of folks in any state don't like homosexuals. That bias has been around a while. The sneaky ones are damn idiots. You don't have to be sneaky to round up a good sized mob for some gay bashing, or any kind of minority bashing. As Joe Strummer so aptly put it, "If Adolf Hitler flew in today They'd send a limousine anyway."
 
2005-12-30 09:51:56 AM
Aerial_Jesus: No. We just hate farking queers.


Then don't fark 'em. I don't like eating prunes, so I don't.
 
2005-12-30 09:52:04 AM
SwingingJohnson:

I really can not understand why so many people spend so much energy on something that is none of their business.

I don't get it either. What difference does it make if gays are married or not to anyone else? It does not effect anyone else in a negative way in any way possible.
 
2005-12-30 09:52:50 AM
Animatronik writes: If you accept the proposition that all races are equal...

My point is that this is a proposition that, not so long ago, was largely rejected in this country. Many of those who once were vocal in their racism have come to conceal their past views.

If you accept the proposition that all marriages are intended to include male:female copulation...

I do not accept that proposition.

Why is marriage such a holy grail anyway???

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask those trying so mightily to prevent gays from enjoying it.
 
2005-12-30 09:53:09 AM
Maccus:

I say let the gays marry, just not in a church. So how long till we allow Wilber to marry Mr. Ed? How long till we allow a Brother to marry his sister?

What if a church wants to allow gay marriage?
 
Displayed 50 of 989 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report