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.

(Washington Post)   No longer newsflash worthy, and that's a good thing: Courts strike down Michigan's ban on gay marriage   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 106
    More: Cool, Mich, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal bench, Ingham County, April DeBoer, Elections in 2004, Michigan Constitution  
•       •       •

1705 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 7:38 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 09:48:00 PM  

TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.


"Much like Detroit and like Madonna backstage in the 80s, Federal Judge destroys argument for same-sex marriage ban"
 
2014-03-21 09:49:29 PM  

TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.


Let's get off on Dix Rd.

I have a cottage in Gaylord

Big beaver Rd. is exit 69

//got nothing
//try the veal
 
2014-03-21 09:59:07 PM  

jaerik: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Would I be correct in asserting that these bans have only accelerated that which they were designed to prevent?

Or is that too good to be true?

It isn't too good to be true.  Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it.  His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans."  He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.


Very true.  Scalia intended that to be a counterargument, not setting precedent.  He was quite correct, though.  It also helps that the statutes/amendments were written by the same group and worded the same way.  As a result, if one is unconstitutional on its face, they all are, and the more states that figure that out, the greater the weight of precedent is going to be.
 
2014-03-21 10:03:48 PM  

TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.


Spending nights alone with Miss Michigan.
 
2014-03-21 10:09:52 PM  
This is gravely threatening to my heterosexual marriage.

/my 2nd one that is
 
2014-03-21 10:12:28 PM  

TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.


Oh God, Yes! Michigan!The feeling's forever!

/you have to get the reference
 
2014-03-21 10:45:39 PM  
LONG OVERDUE.

Vampire Lake: TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.

Oh God, Yes! Michigan!The feeling's forever!

/you have to get the reference


Ha!

scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net
scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net

fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net

The first like on my Facebook post celebrating was from a gay friend who left Michigan, partly because he and his partner wanted to get married and start a family.

Also, FU Attorney General.  The electorate is not the same as in 2004.  A lot of bigots died off and a lot of other people have realized gay marriage isn't that f--king scary.

But thanks for using taxpayer dollars to continue to fight a losing battle.

Ass.


scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-03-21 10:47:09 PM  

Farkhole: TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.

Let's get off on Dix Rd.

I have a cottage in Gaylord

Big beaver Rd. is exit 69

//got nothing
//try the veal

upload.wikimedia.org

/That said, Yes, Michigan! still wins.
 
2014-03-21 10:50:58 PM  

gopher321: ...aaaaand welcome to the 21st century Michigan.


We know, we know.  And it had to take a federal judge.

WHATEVER.  I'm gonna be happy.

And I might actually drive into work an hour early on Monday and give out some congrats at city hall... assuming a stay doesn't happen over the weekend, they're open for business an hour before I'm due in.

I'm stupidly happy about this, and I'm not even gay.

About goddamn time.
 
2014-03-21 10:54:47 PM  
Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:

i2.cdn.turner.com
Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fought this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.
 
2014-03-21 10:57:56 PM  
Sounds good. Glad to see freedom spreading in Michigan, If this keeps up, one day it'll be legal for someone to open up a bar or private club. that the patrons can smoke a cigarette on the patio.
 
2014-03-21 11:00:51 PM  

Erom: Sounds good. Glad to see freedom spreading in Michigan, If this keeps up, one day it'll be legal for someone to open up a bar or private club. that the patrons can smoke a cigarette on the patio.


... Hookah bar.  (shrug).  And patios where food isn't served.

Or small town / ghetto bars where no one gives a f--k and just smokes anyway.

I think the ban is pretty damn stupid (I drink and smoke) but equating the two is stupider.
 
2014-03-21 11:01:34 PM  
 
2014-03-21 11:02:18 PM  

svanmeter: It has been my observation during my lifetime that courts have generally demonstrated gender bias against males, in terms of alimony and child support. But how can a court discriminate when BOTH 'spouses' are male or neither 'spouse' is male?


Yes, that's what everyone is asking... "How WILL this affect Svanmeter's preconceived narratives?"
 
2014-03-21 11:14:02 PM  

Hickory-smoked: svanmeter: It has been my observation during my lifetime that courts have generally demonstrated gender bias against males, in terms of alimony and child support. But how can a court discriminate when BOTH 'spouses' are male or neither 'spouse' is male?


www.twonkhammer.com


I just texted the SO and let him know that I'm probably a lesbian now since the gay agenda obviously won.

3.bp.blogspot.com

/WHEE!
 
2014-03-21 11:26:00 PM  

Semantic Warrior: What's the count on states that still have bans now have the lowest IQs?


FTFY

Needless to say, just cave already. It's only a matter of time and let's get on with actual issues that actually matter, like how awful the economy is and stuff.
 
2014-03-21 11:32:27 PM  
 
2014-03-21 11:40:11 PM  
I hope some second-hand reasonable crosses the border south. Indiana is still derping hard about how the legislature pussied out by tabling the unconstitutional ban on gay marriage (and denial of gay marriage rights from other states - sort of a no-no in terms of the 9th Amendment) rather than putting it on the ballot.

It's a shame. I would totally vote for a state-wide ban on gay marriage that violates the US Constitution, just because my state is too stupid to pass laws via the legislature, so we have to do things through the judiciary.
 
2014-03-21 11:56:21 PM  
And another domino drops...
When do we reach critical mass when the Supreme Court HAS to step in and end this farce?
Although the butthurt this drip, drip, drip causes bigots makes me chuckle.
 
2014-03-22 12:04:00 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:


Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fought this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.


I have deliberately avoided seeing what they looked like.

farking fark, ruins everything.

Awesome ladies nonetheless, but a man deserves his fantasies.
 
2014-03-22 12:04:39 AM  

Vampire Lake: Good for you, Muskegon Country Clerk

http://woodtv.com/2014/03/21/musk-co-clerk-to-issue-same-sex-marriag e- license/


Washtenaw and Oakland tomorrow too. Limited #s, county residents only.
 
2014-03-22 12:05:15 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Vampire Lake: Good for you, Muskegon Country Clerk

http://woodtv.com/2014/03/21/musk-co-clerk-to-issue-same-sex-marriag e- license/

Washtenaw and Oakland tomorrow too. Limited #s, county residents only.


And Ingham. And probably others.
 
2014-03-22 12:18:52 AM  

Smackledorfer: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:


Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fo ught this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.

I have deliberately avoided seeing what they looked like.

farking fark, ruins everything.

Awesome ladies nonetheless, but a man deserves his fantasies.


Oh, you.  You can have your fantasy lesbians.
www.tatugirls.com
 
2014-03-22 12:23:56 AM  
Let 'em Marry

Hee Hee
 
2014-03-22 12:27:09 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Smackledorfer: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:


Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fo ught this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.

I have deliberately avoided seeing what they looked like.

farking fark, ruins everything.

Awesome ladies nonetheless, but a man deserves his fantasies.

Oh, you.  You can have your fantasy lesbians.


Oh happy day.
 
2014-03-22 12:36:13 AM  

Smackledorfer: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Smackledorfer: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:


Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fo ught this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.

I have deliberately avoided seeing what they looked like.

farking fark, ruins everything.

Awesome ladies nonetheless, but a man deserves his fantasies.

Oh, you.  You can have your fantasy lesbians.

Oh happy day.


I know, right!

ekspoze.files.wordpress.com

And a real lesbian couple:
2.bp.blogspot.com

And one more:
www.demeterclarc.com
 
2014-03-22 12:44:51 AM  
Good.

You don't want your church performing the ceremony, that's fine. That's for your congregation and church to decide. I have no problems with that.

When you intrude on OTHER churches, or civil joinings, then it becomes and issue. Freedom of religion, equality under the law, right to privacy. None of YOUR gottverdammt business. That's the issue. It's not an attack on your faith, it's not putting these people IN YOUR FACE, save when you decide that not getting the date you REALLY wanted at the chapel or restaurant of your choice and it turns out to be a same sex couple who got it, because they booked it earlier than you is suddenly horrible, but you were willing to accept losing said date if it was a hetero couple, it's none of your damn business.

What will you tell your children? They're your damn kids. Tell what you tell them when hetero couples get married: they love each other, you f*cking dolts.

I reiterate: you know what gay people REALLY want? To be normal. That isn't to say, to be JUST like you in every way, shape, or form. They just want to live their lives, love their partners, have a job that they really like, maybe get a house, maybe start a business, get a dog or two, maybe some cats, heck, maybe even start a farm. They want to get up with their partner. They want to fall asleep with them. They want to get the paper, and argue about dumb movies, take a dance class or two. They want to take walks with said dogs, maybe. They want to get away from things and maybe book a weekend somewhere quiet. They maybe want to head out to a show. They want all the things that straight people want. Perhaps more tasteful in decor, but essentially the same damn things. To wake up next to someone that they love, and complain about their morning breath, and then shoo said partner to shake a leg and get them some damn coffee or tea, and then make a joke about their butt as they walk away.

That's the insidious "gay agenda." Right there. In all its terrible glory. To be normal, to not attract any stares, to just have a life, full of ups and downs, maybe with some stoopid fights, and then some fun make up scrumpin', maybe with some issues, maybe helping each other through some bad sh*t, to share their lives, good, bad, ugly, indifferent. All they want is to not be judged by WHO they partner with, and y'all who are all up in arms? YOU'RE the problem. Not them. Y'all are making a ruckus, and acting up and acting out, and then are surprised when folks are less than cordial about your "concern." They just want to live a life, be with someone they care about, and maybe even make some great memories together. All they want is the same damn things you want, and that doesn't make them insidious or intrusive, that just means that they are the same as you and me, and her, and him, and just about every other damn person on the planet.

What y'all stand against isn't sin. It's about human contact and the desire to be with who they love, and hating that someone might find that love with someone that you wouldn't, but the desire, the contact, the passion, the love, that's all pretty damn universal, and you're missing the damn point. It's wanting to fight human nature. Good luck with that. In the mean time, maybe step out of the way, and let folks have their special day, and wish them luck when they join together like decent neighbors might.
 
2014-03-22 01:33:01 AM  
Yep this.
 
2014-03-22 02:05:33 AM  
The Religious Right pushed really hard to get more church into their state.  Now they're suffering the consequences of having more state in their church.

The separation between the two went both ways.  They made this Faustian bargain.  Now let them live with it.
 
2014-03-22 02:07:57 AM  

DigitalCoffee: "This decision ... mistakenly proposes that marriage is an emotional arrangement that can simply be redefined to accommodate the dictates of culture and the wants of adults," seven bishops said.


My bishop said something slightly different today:  "Picking and choosing whose rights should be protected or which civil rights the church will support is neither American 'justice for all' nor supported by the God of salvation history. I stand in support of marriage equality and pray that our justice system will work to break down the walls of segregation, promote the humanity of all and calm our irrational fears."
-The Rt. Rev. Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan

Being Episcopalian can be pretty cool.


Farkhole: TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.

Let's get off on Dix Rd.

I have a cottage in Gaylord

Big beaver Rd. is exit 69

//got nothing
//try the veal


CSB:  My exit for work is Big Beaver/69 and until January my parents did have a cottage in Gaylord.
 
2014-03-22 02:48:21 AM  

Polish Hussar: Farkhole: TheManofPA: Well crafted headline idea in my book. I can't think of a good Michigan sex joke though.


One of the ways I can go home from my mother's house is to take "The Penetrator" to Colon. Then north to Climax. Huzzah!
 
2014-03-22 03:32:05 AM  

TheThighsofTorgo: And another domino drops...
When do we reach critical mass when the Supreme Court HAS to step in and end this farce?
Although the butthurt this drip, drip, drip causes bigots makes me chuckle.


It depends. My guess is that one of the current crop of cases will go up the ladder and end the discussion.

But you never know. Unless we get some contradictory judgements the SC could easily decide to leave it to the lower courts to drag out the process.
 
2014-03-22 03:38:14 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Smackledorfer: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Smackledorfer: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Sorry, a judge and two awesome ladies:


Since this is Fark I assume the inevitable "ugh, THOSE kind of lesbians" comment is coming.

So I'd like to remind ya'll that part of the reason they fo ught this was so they could both adopt the 3 children they gave a home to.

I have deliberately avoided seeing what they looked like.

farking fark, ruins everything.

Awesome ladies nonetheless, but a man deserves his fantasies.

Oh, you.  You can have your fantasy lesbians.

Oh happy day.

I know, right!



And a real lesbian couple:


And one more:


I will always love that top one.
 
2014-03-22 05:02:25 AM  

hubiestubert: Good.

You don't want your church performing the ceremony, that's fine. That's for your congregation and church to decide. I have no problems with that.

When you intrude on OTHER churches, or civil joinings, then it becomes and issue. Freedom of religion, equality under the law, right to privacy. None of YOUR gottverdammt business. That's the issue. It's not an attack on your faith, it's not putting these people IN YOUR FACE, save when you decide that not getting the date you REALLY wanted at the chapel or restaurant of your choice and it turns out to be a same sex couple who got it, because they booked it earlier than you is suddenly horrible, but you were willing to accept losing said date if it was a hetero couple, it's none of your damn business.

What will you tell your children? They're your damn kids. Tell what you tell them when hetero couples get married: they love each other, you f*cking dolts.

I reiterate: you know what gay people REALLY want? To be normal. That isn't to say, to be JUST like you in every way, shape, or form. They just want to live their lives, love their partners, have a job that they really like, maybe get a house, maybe start a business, get a dog or two, maybe some cats, heck, maybe even start a farm. They want to get up with their partner. They want to fall asleep with them. They want to get the paper, and argue about dumb movies, take a dance class or two. They want to take walks with said dogs, maybe. They want to get away from things and maybe book a weekend somewhere quiet. They maybe want to head out to a show. They want all the things that straight people want. Perhaps more tasteful in decor, but essentially the same damn things. To wake up next to someone that they love, and complain about their morning breath, and then shoo said partner to shake a leg and get them some damn coffee or tea, and then make a joke about their butt as they walk away.

That's the insidious "gay agenda." Right there. In all its terrible glory. To be ...


There's a reason I favorited you a while back.  This affirms it.  Well said.
 
2014-03-22 07:41:39 AM  
The news is that Michigan now permits gay marriage.  Actually, gay marriage has been forced upon them.  There's a difference.  Understand, I don't have anything against gays living their life the way they wish.  They should be able to have committed relationships and those relationships should permit shared property, medical power of attorney, etc.  I am friends with and related to several gay and lesbian couples and they all know that I am supportive of their relationships and accept them as I would any other couple.

I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the  60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism.  Nobody, gay or straight, needed any stinking piece of paper to prove their love or to make them a couple.  So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?

For one, the whole nature of marriage has changed drastically since the advent of the no-fault divorce. That was sold to us as protecting women from enslavement.  In reality, it destroyed marriage.  Historically, in this country, from the state's perspective, marriage was the union of a couple that was capable of producing offspring.  More than being a right, marriage was the assumption of responsibility.  A married man was legally responsible for the well-being of his spouse.  I know that this was necessary because of laws that discriminated against women and property rights but in the days before readily available or reliable birth control, it forced the man to provide for his lawfully wedded wife when she was at her most vulnerable - pregnant and post-partum - and wasn't able to support herself.  Marriage also obligated the man to support his children until the age of majority.  Remember that these laws were in effect before the U.S. had become a welfare state.  In return for the assumption, by the married couple, of the responsibilities of providing for themselves and their children, the state granted the couple certain rights, such as the right to transfer property to their heirs, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other, and the automatic assumption of all property by the surviving spouse in the event of death.  In other words, the state agreed to stay out of their business if the couple agreed to take care of themselves and their children.

Divorce has always meant that the state assumed a good many of your rights.  When a couple gets divorced, their children are no longer their own but wards of the state.  Without a divorce, the state only got involved in any child's life when his parents had egregiously failed in their responsibility to care for him.  Upon filing for a divorce, the state automatically intrudes into the life of the minor child and gets to decide which parent will have custodial rights and how much the other parent will pay for that child's maintenance.  In other words, parents lose their rights over their children when they have demonstrated that they are incapable of continuing to assume the responsibility of marriage.

The divorce rate has skyrocketed since the advent of no-fault divorce, coupled with the advent of the welfare state.  The so-called sanctity of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was on the horizon.  The results to children have been particularly devastating.  Welfare laws that promote single-parenthood coupled with divorce laws that make it easy to shirk parental responsibility have left a majority of children now NOT living with and being raised by both natural parents.  Every study done shows that children living in a home with both parents have roughly a single-digit percentage of living in poverty.  Children living in a home with never married parents have roughly a single digit chance of NOT living in poverty.  Children living in poverty is the cause of more societal problems than there is time to enumerate.

The significant change, however, is the intrusion of the state into individual lives.  In many ways, the state permits abrogation of responsibility by parents and spouses with easy divorce.  But other laws regarding marriage also come into play.  Spousal benefits, for example, are mandated by the state.  Spousal rights to Social Security benefits.  In talking to my most activist gay friends, when you shuck it right down to the cob, that is what they always settle on.  They are demanding the right to free health insurance coverage for their spouse.  They are demanding that their spouse get their retirement benefits.  They've been living together, in love, for over 30 years.  They have experienced damned little by way of discrimination.  One couple is highly regarded in their profession, they own property together in 3 states (and did so before gay marriage was legal in any of them) and, with one of them being an attorney, they have taken care of all property and power of attorney matters.  But, when pressed, they will both admit that they want the automatic health care coverage and retirement benefits.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting equality of those benefits, I would argue that the great societal problem is not that gays haven't been able to marry.  It is that we have permitted (or demanded) that the state assume so many of our responsibilities.  The state has no business confiscating 15% of everyone's productivity under the guise of providing some illusory security.  Employers have no business charging customers huge sums of money for their employees' productivity and then deciding or accepting government mandates on how a significant chunk of the fruits of their labors will be spent with no control by the person who earned that money.  But we have accepted that as the norm.

So now gays can be married.  Not that marriage means all that much in and of itself.  They must understand, however, that to be married is to invite the government to control another portion of your life.  When a gay couple goes to get divorced - and it will happen - they will find that the state now has a compelling interest to know about everything you own.  And the state will get to decide who gets to keep what.    Anyone who has been through a divorce knows that there are 2 winners and 2 losers.  The winners are neither of the marriage partners.

I know that religious conservatives think that gay marriage will ruin marriage.  That ship has sailed.  I hope gays like what they've gotten themselves into.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." T. Jefferson.
 
2014-03-22 09:16:26 AM  

Mr. Right: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." T. Jefferson.


So you want the government to take away some people's rights, because that way they won't take away some people's rights. Great. Clear think there. Is that what they call "derp"?
 
2014-03-22 09:56:26 AM  

Mr. Right: The news is that Michigan now permits gay marriage.  Actually, gay marriage has been forced upon them.  There's a difference.  Understand, I don't have anything against gays living their life the way they wish.  They should be able to have committed relationships and those relationships should permit shared property, medical power of attorney, etc.  I am friends with and related to several gay and lesbian couples and they all know that I am supportive of their relationships and accept them as I would any other couple.

I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the  60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism.  Nobody, gay or straight, needed any stinking piece of paper to prove their love or to make them a couple.  So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?

For one, the whole nature of marriage has changed drastically since the advent of the no-fault divorce. That was sold to us as protecting women from enslavement.  In reality, it destroyed marriage.  Historically, in this country, from the state's perspective, marriage was the union of a couple that was capable of producing offspring.  More than being a right, marriage was the assumption of responsibility.  A married man was legally responsible for the well-being of his spouse.  I know that this was necessary because of laws that discriminated against women and property rights but in the days before readily available or reliable birth control, it forced the man to provide for his lawfully wedded wife when she was at her most vulnerable - pregnant and post-partum - and wasn't able to support herself.  Marriage also obligated the man to support his children until the age of majority.  Remember that these laws were in effect before the U.S. had become a welfare state.  In return for the assumption, by the married couple, of the responsibilities of providing for themselves and their children, the state granted the couple certain rights, such as the right to transfer property to their heirs, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other, and the automatic assumption of all property by the surviving spouse in the event of death.  In other words, the state agreed to stay out of their business if the couple agreed to take care of themselves and their children.

Divorce has always meant that the state assumed a good many of your rights.  When a couple gets divorced, their children are no longer their own but wards of the state.  Without a divorce, the state only got involved in any child's life when his parents had egregiously failed in their responsibility to care for him.  Upon filing for a divorce, the state automatically intrudes into the life of the minor child and gets to decide which parent will have custodial rights and how much the other parent will pay for that child's maintenance.  In other words, parents lose their rights over their children when they have demonstrated that they are incapable of continuing to assume the responsibility of marriage.

The divorce rate has skyrocketed since the advent of no-fault divorce, coupled with the advent of the welfare state.  The so-called sanctity of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was on the horizon.  The results to children have been particularly devastating.  Welfare laws that promote single-parenthood coupled with divorce laws that make it easy to shirk parental responsibility have left a majority of children now NOT living with and being raised by both natural parents.  Every study done shows that children living in a home with both parents have roughly a single-digit percentage of living in poverty.  Children living in a home with never married parents have roughly a single digit chance of NOT living in poverty.  Children living in poverty is the cause of more societal problems than there is time to enumerate.

The significant change, however, is the intrusion of the state into individual lives.  In many ways, the state permits abrogation of responsibility by parents and spouses with easy divorce.  But other laws regarding marriage also come into play.  Spousal benefits, for example, are mandated by the state.  Spousal rights to Social Security benefits.  In talking to my most activist gay friends, when you shuck it right down to the cob, that is what they always settle on.  They are demanding the right to free health insurance coverage for their spouse.  They are demanding that their spouse get their retirement benefits.  They've been living together, in love, for over 30 years.  They have experienced damned little by way of discrimination.  One couple is highly regarded in their profession, they own property together in 3 states (and did so before gay marriage was legal in any of them) and, with one of them being an attorney, they have taken care of all property and power of attorney matters.  But, when pressed, they will both admit that they want the automatic health care coverage and retirement benefits.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting equality of those benefits, I would argue that the great societal problem is not that gays haven't been able to marry.  It is that we have permitted (or demanded) that the state assume so many of our responsibilities.  The state has no business confiscating 15% of everyone's productivity under the guise of providing some illusory security.  Employers have no business charging customers huge sums of money for their employees' productivity and then deciding or accepting government mandates on how a significant chunk of the fruits of their labors will be spent with no control by the person who earned that money.  But we have accepted that as the norm.

So now gays can be married.  Not that marriage means all that much in and of itself.  They must understand, however, that to be married is to invite the government to control another portion of your life.  When a gay couple goes to get divorced - and it will happen - they will find that the state now has a compelling interest to know about everything you own.  And the state will get to decide who gets to keep what.    Anyone who has been through a divorce knows that there are 2 winners and 2 losers.  The winners are neither of the marriage partners.

I know that religious conservatives think that gay marriage will ruin marriage.  That ship has sailed.  I hope gays like what they've gotten themselves into.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." T. Jefferson.


Give me a break.
 
2014-03-22 10:04:31 AM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Give me a break.


Did you really need to quote his entire post?  I've got him on ignore for a reason, and no part of that insane rant was worth reading.
 
2014-03-22 10:08:03 AM  

Last Man on Earth: thismomentinblackhistory: Give me a break.

Did you really need to quote his entire post?  I've got him on ignore for a reason, and no part of that insane rant was worth reading.


Sorry, on the mobile app.
 
2014-03-22 10:19:23 AM  

Mr. Right: The news is that Michigan now permits gay marriage.  Actually, gay marriage has been forced upon them.  There's a difference.  Understand, I don't have anything against gays living their life the way they wish.  They should be able to have committed relationships and those relationships should permit shared property, medical power of attorney, etc.  I am friends with and related to several gay and lesbian couples and they all know that I am supportive of their relationships and accept them as I would any other couple.

I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the  60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism.  Nobody, gay or straight, needed any stinking piece of paper to prove their love or to make them a couple.  So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?

For one, the whole nature of marriage has changed drastically since the advent of the no-fault divorce. That was sold to us as protecting women from enslavement.  In reality, it destroyed marriage.  Historically, in this country, from the state's perspective, marriage was the union of a couple that was capable of producing offspring.  More than being a right, marriage was the assumption of responsibility.  A married man was legally responsible for the well-being of his spouse.  I know that this was necessary because of laws that discriminated against women and property rights but in the days before readily available or reliable birth control, it forced the man to provide for his lawfully wedded wife when she was at her most vulnerable - pregnant and post-partum - and wasn't able to support herself.  Marriage also obligated the man to support his children until the age of majority.  Remember that these laws were in effect before the U.S. had become a welfare state.  In return for the assumption, by the married couple, of the responsibilities of providing for themselves and their children, the stat ...


So, the grapes are REALLY sour then? You must be really fun at parties...

/I'mma be the one dancing with the silly lesbians and learning some moves from my gay friends. I don't dance really well enough for them to not roll their eyes, but enthusiasm counts. Especially for the straight girls in the audience...
 
2014-03-22 11:06:16 AM  

orbister: Mr. Right: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." T. Jefferson.

So you want the government to take away some people's rights, because that way they won't take away some people's rights. Great. Clear think there. Is that what they call "derp"?


You clearly do not understand.  Gays have every right to live the way they wish.  If they want gay marriage as a matter of law, fine.  But they may find that they don't really want those rights when it means that the government is going to take over yet another aspect of their life.

The point of my post was that marriage is a broken institution.  Straights took care of that 40  years ago.  And what we have figured out is that by shirking the responsibilities of marriage, we lose a lot of the rights we thought we had.  Outside of the typical marriage responsibilities, we have also given up a lot of our responsibility for our own welfare.  Those have been rolled into marriage over the years.  That is really what gays wanted access to, at least the gays with whom I am familiar.  In my opinion, gays should not have pursued marriage rights, they should have pursued a rollback in things like spousal health coverage and Social Security.

Just take health insurance, for example.  If you work for a company that covers health insurance, spouses are generally covered as well.  This is discriminatory against single employees, gay or straight.  The answer, in my opinion, is not to include everyone with whom singles can create some kind of legal relationship but to disallow any company from providing health insurance and just giving all the money that the company spends on health insurance to the employees.  They're charging their customers enough to cover those expenses and they are obviously willing to spend that much money to employ their workers.  Just give the employees the total cost of employment and let them decide how to spend it, after they have fulfilled their responsibility to pay their taxes.

By going the other direction and demanding that they be treated the same as heterosexuals, gays are opening themselves up to more control over their lives by a government only too willing to assume those rights.
 
2014-03-22 11:25:45 AM  

Mr. Right: I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the 60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism. Nobody, gay or straight, needed any stinking piece of paper to prove their love or to make them a couple. So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?


Well, these two women would like to BOTH have custody of their three ADOPTED children so if something happens to one of them the children still have a parent.

Ass.
 
2014-03-22 12:36:10 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Mr. Right: I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the 60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism. Nobody, gay or straight, needed any stinking piece of paper to prove their love or to make them a couple. So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?

Well, these two women would like to BOTH have custody of their three ADOPTED children so if something happens to one of them the children still have a parent.

Ass.


As well as myriad property, tax and succession issues that 60s and 70s hippies didn't have to worry about.
 
2014-03-22 02:30:28 PM  

Mr. Right: orbister: Mr. Right: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." T. Jefferson.

So you want the government to take away some people's rights, because that way they won't take away some people's rights. Great. Clear think there. Is that what they call "derp"?

You clearly do not understand.  Gays have every right to live the way they wish.  If they want gay marriage as a matter of law, fine.  But they may find that they don't really want those rights when it means that the government is going to take over yet another aspect of their life.

The point of my post was that marriage is a broken institution.  Straights took care of that 40  years ago.  And what we have figured out is that by shirking the responsibilities of marriage, we lose a lot of the rights we thought we had.  Outside of the typical marriage responsibilities, we have also given up a lot of our responsibility for our own welfare.  Those have been rolled into marriage over the years.  That is really what gays wanted access to, at least the gays with whom I am familiar.  In my opinion, gays should not have pursued marriage rights, they should have pursued a rollback in things like spousal health coverage and Social Security.

Just take health insurance, for example.  If you work for a company that covers health insurance, spouses are generally covered as well.  This is discriminatory against single employees, gay or straight.  The answer, in my opinion, is not to include everyone with whom singles can create some kind of legal relationship but to disallow any company from providing health insurance and just giving all the money that the company spends on health insurance to the employees.  They're charging their customers enough to cover those expenses and they are obviously willing to spend that much money to employ their workers.  Just give the employees the total cost of employment and let them decide how to spend it, after they have fulfilled their responsibility to pay their taxes.

By going the other direction and demanding that they be treated the same as heterosexuals, gays are opening themselves up to more control over their lives by a government only too willing to assume those rights.


No, what you're doing is trying to side rail a discussion about equality to an entirely different subject. And it's not exactly a natural shift. You've come in with another axe to grind, and figure this as good as any a spot to pontificate--and coming from my exceedingly windy tochis that's saying something--on matters that have little to do with the discussion at hand. Which reeks of deflection...
 
2014-03-22 02:35:25 PM  

Mr. Right: I'm also old enough to remember that a few of the most activist gays and lesbians I have known since the 60s were preaching to me, back in the  60s and 70s, that marriage was an anachronism....So what has changed to make it such a hot civil rights issue?


i.imgur.com

There are various people who will always want remain outsiders to any system that they consider to be oppressive, whether that's marriage or patriarchy or capitalism or militarism or communism or racism or anything else. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of people in any given social system want the same advantages others have for themselves and their children. As the old saying goes, membership has its privileges.TM
 
2014-03-22 02:52:05 PM  
Twitter is blowing up with pics of peeps getting married in Michigan.


/it's not dusty in here; i'm still getting over that awful cold from last week
 
2014-03-22 05:14:49 PM  

hubiestubert: No, what you're doing is trying to side rail a discussion about equality to an entirely different subject. And it's not exactly a natural shift. You've come in with another axe to grind, and figure this as good as any a spot to pontificate--and coming from my exceedingly windy tochis that's saying something--on matters that have little to do with the discussion at hand. Which reeks of deflection...


Am I trying to side rail a discussion or is the discussion entirely too narrow?  A gay couple that I have been friends with for 30 years brought this point up to me.  I have, for years, thought that fringe benefits for employees are immoral.  The employees are required to be productive enough for the employer to charge customers that money but the employees have no control over that money.  Rather like a company store where you not only have to buy there but you may only buy what the company decides to offer.  These two gay friends tied that to the gay marriage issue.

This gay couple are both successful in their fields.  One is a tenured professor, the other a clinical psychologist with a lucrative practice - including marriage counseling, ironically enough.  Their argument is that marriage is not a civil right at all.  Marriage is a set of responsibilities that, if one agrees to accept those responsibilities and limitations, the state grants you certain rights.  Civil rights attach almost no responsibilities.  For example, sitting at a lunch counter regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation is a civil right that can only be denied if you misbehave in some way such as refusing to pay for your lunch.  You don't have to meet a set of requirements prior to being allowed to sit down, you only need to not violate rules once you get there. The psychologist's argument is that marriage only grants a spouse rights when he has agreed to limitations and responsibilities and, as such, it is not a civil right but an earned right.  I will confess that these two are absolutely the only gays I know that do NOT believe gay marriage is a civil right but I think he makes an interesting argument.

These two are not, however, the only gays I know who are not in favor of gay marriage.  And the one common thing they point to is that, when you eliminate all the emotional arguments, what you're left with is that gays can live together and be happy without marriage.  They can draw up legal papers for property succession, medical power of attorney, and the like. Most feel that discrimination in employment and home rentals will only get worse with gay marriage because bigots can always find a way.  The one thing the activists want that cannot happen without marriage is spousal benefits from government or private sector jobs.  Even adoption could (and should, given the number of wonderful gay and lesbian adopted parent just within my acquaintance) be granted.  Given the vehemence with which so many of the older activists argued, back in the 60s and 70s, that marriage itself was an anachronism whose usefulness had long since passed, one would have to at least consider that this argument has some merit.  So my point is that, if those fringe benefits are the baseline impetus behind gay marriage and those fringe benefits are, as I believe them to be, immoral then why the push for  gay marriage?   Why not push for the elimination of those fringe benefits and attain equality that way without the risk of ceding large chunks of your life over the state?
 
2014-03-22 05:52:30 PM  
No, Mr. Right, you're deflecting. And in all your rambling it translates to, "the grapes are sour anyway, so fine have them."

Maybe not your personal opinion, but the more you whine--and that is all your posts have been--the more it spears that you can't just have a moment of joy for folks.
 
2014-03-22 08:41:17 PM  

hubiestubert: No, Mr. Right, you're deflecting. And in all your rambling it translates to, "the grapes are sour anyway, so fine have them."

Maybe not your personal opinion, but the more you whine--and that is all your posts have been--the more it spears that you can't just have a moment of joy for folks.


You could not be more wrong.  But whatever.

I have a lot of joy for folks.  If marriage is what is going to make gays happy, good for them.  But the ones I know who take the most joy out of life and who give the most joy to others are not those who focus on what they don't have but on what they do.

As to deflecting, whining or whatever you've decided to call it instead of engaging in a rational argument, redefining words is above your pay grade.

Can you argue that marriage, as an institution has NOT been broken for some time?

Can you argue that we were not assured, 40 years ago, that marriage was an anachronism and on the way out?

Can you argue that the government does not take over large chunks of your life when you decide to get divorced?

Can you argue that, in effect, confiscating a substantial portion of what an employee has earned through his efforts and, either by corporate decision or government mandate, spending it in a way that may or may not be beneficial to him but in no way takes into account his wishes is moral?

Obviously not, or you would have.  It's much easier to just say "sour grapes" and allow your intellect to atrophy into whatever opinions your clique tells you they are supposed to be today.
 
2014-03-22 08:49:53 PM  
MAZEL TOV
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report