Page 95 of 159 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105145 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 950 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #941
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    It means even with that the largest % favor marriage. It means your ideological non-sense about "homarriage" is losing ground at a rapid pace.


    3k11c9a5u1q7
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #942
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Actually, your statement here is blatantly false.

    Just take a gander at my immediately preceeding post above.
    No it isn't. There simply does not exist a legitimate federally recognized union besides marriage, so to ask the question about support for it is pointless. IF there was a legitimate option, then you would have a point. But that option does not exist and is not even being discussed seriously as being put into place on a federal level.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #943
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post


    3k11c9a5u1q7
    Whew for once no long winded idealogical diatribe of sophistry from you!

  4. #944
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No it isn't. There simply does not exist a legitimate federally recognized union besides marriage, so to ask the question about support for it is pointless. IF there was a legitimate option, then you would have a point. But that option does not exist and is not even being discussed seriously as being put into place on a federal level.
    You're appearing rather ideological in your denial of obvious realities.

    It simply doesn't matter whether there exists in the federal government at this time a box on the IRS form to check for "married/homarried".

    There easily can be one re-worded there if just one state adopts a civil union domestic partnership for SS couples called something other than "marriage" but with state-authorized recognition by government and private enterprise, as the Constitution requires that the federal government (as well as other states) adapt accordingly in support providing the state adoption does not violate the Constitution.

    The relevant point, which I'm sure you grasp, is what the American people actually want.

    And though 70% want SS relationships recognized, 63% are opposed to calling those relationships "marriage".

    That's a huge piece of information to so blantantly deny the relevancy of.

    Acceptance is really for the best.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  5. #945
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    You're appearing rather ideological in your denial of obvious realities.

    It simply doesn't matter whether there exists in the federal government at this time a box on the IRS form to check for "married/homarried".

    There easily can be one re-worded there if just one state adopts a civil union domestic partnership for SS couples called something other than "marriage" but with state-authorized recognition by government and private enterprise, as the Constitution requires that the federal government (as well as other states) adapt accordingly in support providing the state adoption does not violate the Constitution.

    The relevant point, which I'm sure you grasp, is what the American people actually want.

    And though 70% want SS relationships recognized, 63% are opposed to calling those relationships "marriage".

    That's a huge piece of information to so blantantly deny the relevancy of.

    Acceptance is really for the best.
    It does not exist now, and despite numerous polls throughout the last decade plus showing that people at least used to support same sex unions other than marriage in much larger amounts, there still has been no valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level. Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples. They recognize the foolishness of making two government contracts that do basically the same thing except they are called different things.

    This is very relevant. If in over 10 years no one has made an effort to put an other-than-marriage federal union in place, then it isn't likely to happen now that same sex marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance throughout the US.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #946
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It does not exist now, and despite numerous polls throughout the last decade plus showing that people at least used to support same sex unions other than marriage in much larger amounts, there still has been no valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level. Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples. They recognize the foolishness of making two government contracts that do basically the same thing except they are called different things.

    This is very relevant. If in over 10 years no one has made an effort to put an other-than-marriage federal union in place, then it isn't likely to happen now that same sex marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance throughout the US.
    Your statements are erroneous.

    It's not about any "valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level", as that must be initiated by the states, not the fed.

    Your statement "Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples" is a contradiction. Thus it is unlikely that any state ever did create the non-marriage civil union domestic partnerships you allege .. so I'll call you on that one: please provide proof, not only that those were ever created and called something other than marriage, but then later they were deleted/abandoned and replaced with SS marriage statutes. This should not be too hard for you, as only a handful of states now have SS marriage statutes.

    Thus your statement of "they recognize the foolishness ..." is merely a contrived fantasy.

    Also, your statement that "ss marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance ..." is blatantly false, as proven by the link I presented a page or so back that shows without any rational conjecture that only 37% favor SS "marriage" andthat 63% are opposed to it.

    Again, your obviously false statements only harm your cause.

    The fact that there are no SS homarriage statutes on state books would be because SS activists thought that would take too long, and so they opted for the hijacking of marriage.

    Clearly, according to the poll results, that hasn't been successful, and is not likely to be successful nationally.

    Activists would have a better chance at getting SS recognition if they followed public sentiment and stumped hard for SS homarriage statues in every state.

    Then the fed would instantly prepare for it.

    It really is that simple and that obvious.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #947
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your statement "Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples" is a contradiction. Thus it is unlikely that any state ever did create the non-marriage civil union domestic partnerships you allege .. so I'll call you on that one: please provide proof, not only that those were ever created and called something other than marriage, but then later they were deleted/abandoned and replaced with SS marriage statutes.
    just to prove you wrong again:

    Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

    The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention. The bill was passed by the House on April 13, and by the Senate on April 20. Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill into law later the same day, and it went into effect on October 1, 2005.[2]

    <snip>

    Updates to all marriage statutes[edit]
    On April 22, 2009 lawmakers of Connecticut both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral. Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the law on April 23. On October 1, 2010, civil unions ceased to be provided and existing civil unions were automatically converted into marriages. Until then, existing civil unions were kept and couples could upgrade to marriage voluntarily.[14][15][16][17] Same-sex marriages, civil unions and broad domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions are legally treated as marriages in Connecticut.[5]

    Same-sex marriage in Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  8. #948
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    just to prove you wrong again:

    Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

    The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention. The bill was passed by the House on April 13, and by the Senate on April 20. Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill into law later the same day, and it went into effect on October 1, 2005.[2]

    <snip>

    Updates to all marriage statutes[edit]
    On April 22, 2009 lawmakers of Connecticut both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral. Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the law on April 23. On October 1, 2010, civil unions ceased to be provided and existing civil unions were automatically converted into marriages. Until then, existing civil unions were kept and couples could upgrade to marriage voluntarily.[14][15][16][17] Same-sex marriages, civil unions and broad domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions are legally treated as marriages in Connecticut.[5]

    Same-sex marriage in Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Purposefully, apparently, you left off the following from your quotes
    The decision to provide for civil unions and not same-sex marriage was controversial and was challenged in the state's courts. On October 10, 2008, the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, ruled that failing to give same-sex couples the full rights, responsibilities and name of marriage was against the equal protection clause of the state's constitution, and ordered same-sex marriage legalized.[3][4]
    First of all, it does not specify what name was given to the SS civil union. It wasn't called a "marriage". What was it called? "Like Marriage?" If the name given is not accurately descriptive it opens up the civil union to challenge.

    Second, the court erred in its ruling with respect to definitive propriety, but merely said you can't have a "like marriage" nameless civil union.

    So the correct solution would have been to give it an appropriate name -- homarriage -- for instance, and try again.

    That the liberal Connecticut court erred and forced these civil unions to be converted to marriages is an anomaly, one that isn't likely to happen in the states where the constitution of the state specifically prohibits SS "marriage".

    In these the great majority of states, the very presence of the constitutional specifcation stating that marriage is only "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", the state courts will allow passage of homarriage statues.

    So you've not "proven me wrong" in any way.

    I stated that the federal government in no way compelled such a state to abandon SS homarriage statutes and that remains true. And I called the other poster to simply illustrate their point with an example as their presentation style indicated they weren't even sure of what they were saying, and indeed, the Connecticut example is not how that poster phrased their statement.

    But what you've presented illustrates how difficult it will now be to do the right and respectful thing and institute homarriage statutes in every state, as some states will now have to first convert all their SS marriages to homarriage statutes and institute a state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is only "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    That will now be much harder.

    Considering that the remaining states will likely never follow suit, being naturally socially conservative as determined by their geographical dynamics, SS activists who pushed for the oxymoronic "marriage" in the relative handful of states where that succeeded have basically done their people a huge disservice with respect to getting all 50 states to at least recognize SS couples.
    Last edited by Ontologuy; 06-27-13 at 02:57 AM.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #949
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Purposefully, apparently, you left off the following from your quotes
    First of all, it does not specify what name was given to the SS civil union. It wasn't called a "marriage". What was it called? "Like Marriage?" If the name given is not accurately descriptive it opens up the civil union to challenge.

    Second, the court erred in its ruling with respect to definitive propriety, but merely said you can't have a "like marriage" nameless civil union.

    So the correct solution would have been to give it an appropriate name -- homarriage -- for instance, and try again.

    LOL you are hilarious.

    FYI "homarraige" ain't in the lexicon of the English language.

  10. #950
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post

    The majority of American citizens supports recognition of SS couples' committed monagamous romantic relationship civil union domestic partnerships by both government and private enterprise.

    However, this majority is not a large one.

    And, only a small minority supports oxymoronically calling these civil union domestic partnerships "marriages".

    Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.

    And the minority that opposes SS couples' civil uion domestic partnerships by any name are adamantly opposed.

    That's reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Here you whine with false accusation, when it's you who didn't present the relevant facts you're supposedly debating me on.

    So, let me do it for you.

    Here's the results on the question about allowing SS couples civil union domestic partner ships but calling those relationships something other than "marriage":

    Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your mid-50s percentage for "marriage" to 37 percent!

    And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS marriage group.

    Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

    This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized.

    Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

    So, though you falsely accuse me of not reading the link, it apparently is you who didn't read it .. either that or you purposely omitted the poll of topical relevance because it refuted your debate point.

    Whatever, clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.
    Here is the poll you referenced:

    "Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

    .............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
    ....................................%............. .........%..........................%............. .......%
    5/13-15/12...................37......................33... ......................25.....................5
    8/10-11/10...................37......................29... ......................28.....................6
    5/12-13/09...................33......................33... ......................29.....................5
    11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30...... ...................32.....................7
    6/13-14/06...................27.....................25.... ......................39.....................8
    5/18-19/04...................25.....................26.... ......................40.....................9
    3/3-4/04......................20......................33 .........................40.....................7

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, unlike your claim, in fact more people prefer marriage to civil unions and by a significant margin. So you where wrong on that whole majority thing, and wrong that only a small minority prefer to call it marriage. In fact you posted results which show you to be 100 % completely wrong. You won't admit this, and will continue to make excuses why the things you image really are true, despite all the evidence saying otherwise. But that will not change the fact that you where wrong.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •