Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?

I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, but am opposed to gay 'marraige' for namesake purposes only. Marraige is solely exclusive to heterosexual couples and has been for thousands of years of human history. If gays have the same rights and are simply referred to differently in regards to their union status I see no reason for this lawsuit to be relevant.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:

let us know when it happens cause it factually hasn't yet

Click to expand...

LMAO! You are trying to prove there is a God because 11 people swore Christ arose after being crucified?

How about you prove he was actually dead when they took him down? Doctors still make that mistake today.

Besides, didnt thousands see Jesus after he was resurrected? As he spread God's Word? Why do we need 11 witnesses?

Apparently he wasnt actually killed during the crucifixion. Not surprising, there are no mortal injuries inflicted during a crucifixion (that type).

(Not to mention you have to prove Jesus was actually the Son of God.)

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:

I lived in Mid-town Atlanta, the French Quarter, had a homosexual roommate in the Army before don't ask, don't tell and had various and sundry homosexuals trotted into the barracks by him most weekend nights. I've known quite a few homosexuals, so another swing and a miss by the good captain.

Click to expand...

I lived in midtown Atlanta as well. Pretty large population of gays, but I doubt if you recognized them all AS gay. And that's kind of the point. The ones you'd see and notice simply don't represent all gays, just a subset.

FWIW, I have a gay brother and spend, obviously, a lot of time around his friends. They come in many shapes and sizes, doctors, lawyers, business owners, accountants, etc. A pretty standard cross section of in his case well educated and fairly prosperous people. They've got quite a full life outside political protests, parades, etc. and being 'gay.' Most of their days are pretty much like anyone else's. Get up, work, maybe exercise a bit, have dinner with friends, a drink, watch a bit of TV or surf the web, go to bed.

BTW, something I've noticed is Conservatives are the only group of people that identify themselves first and foremost by their political beliefs and secondly as anything else. It's not like they're just normal, ordinary people just like everyone else that merely vote and follow politics. No, they're first and foremost, conservatives. Everything else that "is them" is an afterthought.

See how easy stereotypes are?

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?

I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, but am opposed to gay 'marraige' for namesake purposes only. Marraige is solely exclusive to heterosexual couples and has been for thousands of years of human history. If gays have the same rights and are simply referred to differently in regards to their union status I see no reason for this lawsuit to be relevant.

Click to expand...

No, domestic partnerships do not have the same rights as marriages at all. Nothing but marriage is recognized legally by the federal government. Only marriage grants the legal kinship of "spouse", and every single right, privilege, benefit, and even responsibility that goes with that particular kinship recognition.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?

Click to expand...

Wisconsin Referendum 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The text of the adopted amendment, which became Article XIII, Section 13 of the state constitution, reads:

“	Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.[SUP][2][/SUP]

Click to expand...

In April 2009 the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asked in McConkey v. Van Hollen to rule on whether the 2006 Referendum 1 was constitutional. William McConkey, a political science instructor, claimed that the measure violated the state's constitution because it proposed more than one question in a single ballot proposal, which is impermissible under Wisconsin law.[6][7][8] On June 30, 2010, the Court ruled that the amendment is constitutional.[9][10] However, on June 6, 2014 the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin overturned all bans on same-sex marriage in the state.[11]

Click to expand...

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Lursa said:

LMAO! You are trying to prove there is a God because 11 people swore Christ arose after being crucified?

How about you prove he was actually dead when they took him down? Doctors still make that mistake today.

Besides, didnt thousands see Jesus after he was resurrected? As he spread God's Word? Why do we need 11 witnesses?

Apparently he wasnt actually killed during the crucifixion. Not surprising, there are no mortal injuries inflicted during a crucifixion (that type).

(Not to mention you have to prove Jesus was actually the Son of God.)

Click to expand...

you qotued the wrong person lol but we know who you wanted to qoute

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:

No, domestic partnerships do not have the same rights as marriages at all. Nothing but marriage is recognized legally by the federal government. Only marriage grants the legal kinship of "spouse", and every single right, privilege, benefit, and even responsibility that goes with that particular kinship recognition.

Click to expand...

Then shouldn't the focus be on suing the fed for not recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships?? If that were the plaform the LGBT movement was trying to push then I'm sure that the middle-right wing of the GOP would have less to object to and the religious right wouldn't really have anything to yell about. The solution is to sue the FED for Civil Union and Domestic Partnership recognition.... NOT suing states for marraige status.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

1.)My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?

2.)I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, but am opposed to gay 'marraige' for namesake purposes only.
3.) Marraige is solely exclusive to heterosexual couples and has been for thousands of years of human history.
4.) If gays have the same rights and are simply referred to differently in regards to their union status I see no reason for this lawsuit to be relevant.

Click to expand...

1.) yes you would be factually wrong. No civil unions/domestic partnerships are equal to legal marriage.
2.) then you are opposed to equal rights
3.) also factually false and meanignless to equal rights
4.) well as already pointed out this is not the case and its impossible.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

Then shouldn't the focus be on suing the fed for not recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships?? If that were the plaform the LGBT movement was trying to push then I'm sure that the middle-right wing of the GOP would have less to object to and the religious right wouldn't really have anything to yell about. The solution is to sue the FED for Civil Union and Domestic Partnership recognition.... NOT suing states for marraige status.

Click to expand...

No. Why should we set up more relationships just to appease some people's sensibilities? What a stupid waste of time and money. You don't own the word marriage. Religions do not own the term marriage. No one owns the term marriage so it easily can include same sex couples, the same way that it currently does.

I could care less about whether or not some people are going to be upset over same sex couples using the term marriage. They can get over it or grumble about it for the rest of their lives. That is their business.

Not to mention, that in many states the same laws that are being challenged for same sex marriages to be legal would have to be challenged for any same sex unions to be legal, so it is pointless to just go after the other, lesser unions when we can easily get same sex marriage legalized with a single SCOTUS ruling.

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:

2.) then you are opposed to equal rights
.

Click to expand...

How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???

Click to expand...

easy because what you support is factually impossible.
similar to seperate but equal for minorities. It was removed because it in fact was not equal.

same thing with what you want, its not equal. You think it is and call it equal but like those that did the same with minority rights its simply not.

can you tell me how it would be equal?
then im sure i can give you an example of how its factually not

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Moderator's Warning:

Cut out the baiting and other nonsense. Discuss the OP, not each other.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:

easy because what you support is factually impossible.
similar to seperate but equal for minorities. It was removed because it in fact was not equal.

same thing with what you want, its not equal. You think it is and call it equal but like those that did the same with minority rights its simply not.

Click to expand...

That counter arguement is inherently flawed. Comparing this to 'seperate but equal' is what I like to call a "desperation save" arguement. In the case of seperate, but equal african americans were put in incredibly inferior schools, with inferior professors, and facilities and thus were denied equal treatment. With what I am proposing the treatment and legal status are the same the only difference is the name. Would same sex partnerships recieve the same tax status as married couples? Yes. Would they be able to adopt? Yes. Would they have all the rights allowed to a hetero married couple? Yes. Your 'seperate but equal' arguement is a desperate grasp at straws if I have ever seen one.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???

Click to expand...

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

MasterLiberty said:

That counter arguement is inherently flawed. Comparing this to 'seperate but equal' is what I like to call a "desperation save" arguement. In the case of seperate, but equal african americans were put in incredibly inferior schools, with inferior professors, and facilities and thus were denied equal treatment. With what I am proposing the treatment and legal status are the same the only difference is the name. Would same sex partnerships recieve the same tax status as married couples? Yes. Would they be able to adopt? Yes. Would they have all the rights allowed to a hetero married couple? Yes. Your 'seperate but equal' arguement is a desperate grasp at straws if I have ever seen one.

Click to expand...

Civil unions are incredibly inferior to marriages.

How about heterosexual couples have their marriages annulled, and then they can get civil unions while homosexual couples can get marriages?

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:

Civil unions are incredibly inferior to marriages.

Click to expand...

Given the changes that I proposed care to explain how they would be inferior?? If they are given all the same legal rights?? Prove to me that the statement I made was wrong without simply stating otherwise, thank you.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

That counter arguement is inherently flawed. Comparing this to 'seperate but equal' is what I like to call a "desperation save" arguement. In the case of seperate, but equal african americans were put in incredibly inferior schools, with inferior professors, and facilities and thus were denied equal treatment. With what I am proposing the treatment and legal status are the same the only difference is the name. Would same sex partnerships recieve the same tax status as married couples? Yes. Would they be able to adopt? Yes. Would they have all the rights allowed to a hetero married couple? Yes. Your 'seperate but equal' arguement is a desperate grasp at straws if I have ever seen one.

Click to expand...

You have no legitimate reason to create a fully separate legal situation (partnership, union) for same sex couples that functions legally exactly the same way that marriage does only without using the word marriage. There is no reason to do that except to appease some people's sensibilities, which is not legally necessary at all and would cost more money and time to implement.

Plus, then the question would have to be why not simply share the term marriage to describe same sex unions that are the same as opposite sex unions? What legitimate state interest does doing this serve?

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

AGENT J said:

you qotued the wrong person lol but we know who you wanted to qoute

Click to expand...

Ack! You're right. This is what I was supposed to quote:

Paleocon said:

God can be proven to exist, and the true religion can be proven:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...8-christian-secularists-5.html#post1063196439

I wouldn't want the government supporting a false god, because that would be disconnected from reality. What makes the true God different is that he is the true God.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

LMAO! You are trying to prove there is a God because 11 people swore Christ arose after being crucified?

How about you prove he was actually dead when they took him down? Doctors still make that mistake today.

Besides, didnt thousands see Jesus after he was resurrected? As he spread God's Word? Why do we need 11 witnesses?

Apparently he wasnt actually killed during the crucifixion. Not surprising, there are no mortal injuries inflicted during a crucifixion (that type).

(Not to mention you have to prove Jesus was actually the Son of God.)

Click to expand...

I bolded the "true" whackiness and the "true" reason we NEED to keep state and church separate.

My Lord! That is the same as Muslims with blind extremism.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

1.)That counter arguement is inherently flawed.
2.)Comparing this to 'separate but equal' is what I like to call a "desperation save" argument.
3.)In the case of separate, but equal african americans were put in incredibly inferior schools, with inferior professors, and facilities and thus were denied equal treatment.
4.) With what I am proposing the treatment and legal status are the same the only difference is the name.
5.) Would same sex partnerships receive the same tax status as married couples? Yes. Would they be able to adopt? Yes. Would they have all the rights allowed to a hetero married couple? Yes.
6.) Your 'separate but equal' arguement is a desperate grasp at straws if I have ever seen one.

Click to expand...

1.) not at all since its factually accurate lol
2.) weird judges and many law professionals have already stated this. You can claim this but facts disagree.
3.) yes that was SOME of the things that happened but not the only reason nice try but that starwman wont fly since thats an argument YOU made up and i never mentioned lol
4.) which is what would factually be UNEQUAL. why is a different name needed if it is equal that is illogical and exposes the truth. You want a different name because you in fact dont see it as equal hence the problem and the failure of your proposal.
5.) meanignless did blacks receive water from colored fountains? the same water? yes etc etc
6.) again except its factual while you have nothing to support your claim with any basis of legality or rights.

here the example that will make expose your proposal for what it is

what if when obama became president he was told, "listen because in the history of this country a black man has never been president some people dont think its right for you to be" "It would violate the sanctity of the office and all its traditions" "SO we are going to call you CEO of the US instead. Now mind you, you will have all the same power, and responsibility and everything will be equal, juuuuuuuuuust a different name" . . .

oh and by the way, as soon as a white guy wins again we'll go back to calling him president of the united states"

yeah that reeks of "equality" LMAO

sorry what you want is factually not equal and its intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise, even you suggesting that its not deserving of the same name proves you dont see it as equal and nobody educated and objective will ever by it.

quick question to further show its wrong.

do you think hetero and homosexual marriages are equal?
if no then theres nothing to talk about, you already admit you dont view them as equal

if yes simply tell us why you want a different name for somethign that is the same?

the only thing desperately grasping at straws is your fall equation to equality.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???

Click to expand...

So you propose 'separate but equal?' The decision was that it is not equal.

And why should tax payers pay for the bureaucracy to maintain two systems? I thought Republicans and conservatives wanted smaller govt?

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

Given the changes that I proposed care to explain how they would be inferior?? If they are given all the same legal rights?? Prove to me that the statement I made was wrong without simply stating otherwise, thank you.

Click to expand...

already done

if you want more proof simply answer this question

why do YOU feel it needs a different name?

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:

God can be proven to exist, and the true religion can be proven:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...8-christian-secularists-5.html#post1063196439

I wouldn't want the government supporting a false god, because that would be disconnected from reality. What makes the true God different is that he is the true God.

Click to expand...

Apologies. I responded to this in post 292.

Accidentally quoted the wrong person initially.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:

You have no legitimate reason to create a fully separate legal situation (partnership, union) for same sex couples that functions legally exactly the same way that marriage does only without using the word marriage. There is no reason to do that except to appease some people's sensibilities, which is not legally necessary at all and would cost more money and time to implement.

Plus, then the question would have to be why not simply share the term marriage to describe same sex unions that are the same as opposite sex unions? What legitimate state interest does doing this serve?

Click to expand...

My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.

Click to expand...

So then all new straight civil ceremonies would also be moved to the new civil unions?

And you are incorrect about reproduction. There are millions of families headed by gay couples. They have bio kids, step-kids, adopted kids, and use in-vitro and surrogacy. Gay couples wish to have families just as much as straight people...being gay doesnt damage your reproductive instincts.

Next question would be tho...would any sterile couples, couples beyond reproductive years, and couples who chose not to have kids also have to have a civil union? It seems "equal.'

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

1.)My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state.
2.)Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition."
3.) To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life.
4.) same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money.
5.) The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.

Click to expand...

1.) already separated. Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion
2.) yes it can be and religious marriage is still in tact and meaningless to the discussion
3.) all your opinion and meanginless to legal marriage and equal rights
4.) see #3
5.) again religion is a non fact in the discussion of legal marriage.


so using your own failed rational what about religions that already allow ssm? do you then support "overreaching into a religious practice" since its a marriage you deem not equal?
what about religions different from yours?
what about marriages that already dont involve religion? are you claim that only religious marriages should also be legal? no more marriages by judges or magistrates or anybody with a license?

all questions that further exposes your biased and prove you dont view them as equal and your system wouldn't treat them as such.

sorry but your argument is getting worse and worse.

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

MasterLiberty said:

My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.

Click to expand...

Marriage is not a religious ceremony, not solely anyway. Religion does not own marriage. Marriage began as a non-religious union, mainly focused on families, political alliances, personal family alliances, etc. Religion did not get involved in marriages until relatively recently, compared to when marriage could be said to have begun.

History of Marriage | The History, Origins and Customs of Marriage

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts | Fox News

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

Click to expand...

Marriage, a History | Psychology Today

"Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments."

So it is false to claim that marriage is solely a religious ceremony. It simply isn't. My husband and I are not religious at all, but we still have all the privileges of marriage, as we would have even 4000 years ago in most cultures because marriage really has not been mainly religious or a religious ceremony. It is mainly about creating family ties between two people who are not immediate family already.

As for reproductive capabilities, that is another false argument because a positive reproductive ability has never been a requirement of marriage in the US. In fact, in 5 states today, a negative reproductive ability (the couple cannot procreate with each other) must be proven in order for certain couples to be allowed to marry. (First cousin marriages in states like Arizona, and others). Plus, homosexuals can reproduce in the same way that infertile opposite sex couples can, even when those couples marry knowing they cannot reproduce with each other for some reason (as many do). Not to mention, many couples are childless by choice in the US and that is in no way held against them.