Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

But he says he has no idea what happens when you die or "where the soul is".

I'm not sure that positions on either of those questions are required to be considered a Christian or not.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I'm still really curious about what Theodore Olson's legacy will be if he manages to pull this off. I recall a lot of the left being openly hostile and suspicious when he signed on.

 

[Barrett2]

I love that the judge used a rational basis Equal Protection analysis to strike down the Amendment. Ballsy.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

I'm pro gay marriage but these judges are out of control. Is there not someone who reviews these propositions on the constitutionality before they go up for a vote? If it's unconstitutional then why the hell was it on the ballot. What a waste of fucking time and money.

This was addressed during the trial.

THE COURT: How about the Attorney General? I have a question for the Attorney General.

MS. PACHTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: If Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution, the position which the Attorney General is taking now, how did it wind up on the ballot? Isn't the Attorney General supposed to review these measures beforehand and if an initiative measure is in violation of the Constitution, isn't the Attorney General duty-bound to prevent it from being placed before the voters?

MS. PACHTER: No, your Honor. I don't believe that's true under California law. The Attorney General's responsibility is to draft a title and summary that describes the initiative for the purpose of collecting signatures --

THE COURT: Can I have a brief on this?

MS. PACHTER: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Can I have a brief on this? You say the Attorney General has no duty or responsibility to review an initiative measure for its constitutionality or its unconstitutionality before being placed before the voters.

MS. PACHTER: That's right, your Honor. There are provisions in the law for challenging, in advance of putting it on the ballot, a ballot initiative. Most of those are generally not decided in advance of the election under prevailing precedent in California law. But we are happy to present a brief.

THE COURT: As a lawyer, I was involved in a pre-election challenge to an initiative measure.

MS. PACHTER: Yes. I'm sorry. I think I mis- --

THE COURT: And you say the Attorney General has no responsibility to review an initiative measure for its constitutionality?

MS. PACHTER: Not under the law of the initiative process in California, your Honor, no. The Attorney General does not have the authority under state law to determine what the law is. That under California law, as well as under federal law, is the province of the courts.

THE COURT: Did the Attorney General take a position on Proposition 8 prior to the election?

MS. PACHTER: Your Honor, I don't know the answer to that question, but I do not believe so.

THE COURT: It was only after this lawsuit was filed that he took that position, is that correct?

MS. PACHTER: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that question.

THE COURT: It would be helpful, counsel, if you could explore these issues and at an appropriate time submit -- submit the answers.

MS. PACHTER: We would be happy to do that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. I'll appreciate that.

 

[Wilsongt]

You know, this is probably want destroyed Bristol's pending marriage to Levi.

Damn you gays!

They broke up. Again. :lol :lol

 

[Gaborn]

I'm still really curious about what Theodore Olson's legacy will be if he manages to pull this off. I recall a lot of the left being openly hostile and suspicious when he signed on.

I think that too many people view issues as either inherently conservative or inherently liberal without allowing for nuance. In some ways marriage equality for gay couples IS an inherently conservartive, traditional idea. It can be argued it's about social stability, and strengthening familial bonds, providing a stronger, more secure environment for the children that gay couples are raising and caring for as their own (since they ARE theirs). That's a conservative position on the issue that doesn't even have to go to the liberal analysis of fundamental human rights (I agree with both perspectives on the issue in all honesty), but there is no reason for a liberal to NOT have similar concerns.

Also, it's worth noting that people on both sides of the aisle can oppose various issues considered part of the philosophy of their political position, from abortion to gun control to... anything else.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I think that too many people view issues as either inherently conservative or inherently liberal without allowing for nuance. In some ways marriage equality for gay couples IS an inherently conservartive, traditional idea. It can be argued it's about social stability, and strengthening familial bonds, providing a stronger, more secure environment for the children that gay couples are raising and caring for as their own (since they ARE theirs). That's a conservative position on the issue that doesn't even have to go to the liberal analysis of fundamental human rights (I agree with both perspectives on the issue in all honesty), but there is no reason for a liberal to NOT have similar concerns.

Also, it's worth noting that people on both sides of the aisle can oppose various issues considered part of the philosophy of their political position, from abortion to gun control to... anything else.

That's a nice sentiment but most people don't see it that way. Nearly the entire right wing of this country is pretty ticked off at him right now.

 

[StoOgE]

Actually, not that I agree with him, but a system where a panel of judges offer a tentative review of proposed laws (maybe get retired judges on a rotating basis) for constitutionality wouldn't be a bad idea at that. Give the judges 3 to 5 days for an opinion that is not binding (so they can't actually veto a law by themselves) and let someone offer their opinion on it. I'm not saying I would support such a system and I'm sure there are a lot of areas you'd have to exempt from that system (the entire budgetary process for example) for time and practicality. But, for example review every ballot initiative ahead of time? Why not?.

and who is going to argue for and against this and pony up the money for lawyers. Judges can't just look at every line of a law and weigh in on it.

 

[Patriots7]

"God is in the mix when couples of the same race unite [but not when mixed race couples do]."

That's not offensive either. Not at all.

Numbers 12:1-16

God punished Moses' sister for her and Aaron badmouthing Moses for marrying an Ethiopian. God forbade interfaith marriages because 'foreigners' worshiped other gods and thus, could corrupt the hearts of the believers. He had nothing against interracial marriage. So to correct your attempt of proving a point, please use something else and not interracial marriages.

Thanks.

 

[Gaborn]

That's a nice sentiment but most people don't see it that way. Nearly the entire right wing of this country is pretty ticked off at him right now.

Well, yes and no. I think, if we're really going to simplify it that much, there are more or less 3 wings of conservative thought. There is the religious right, which is probably at least a plurality (and probably a majority) of the Repulican party, they're going to be opposed to it no matter what. There is the neo-con wing, which has close political ties to the religious right, and then there is about another 25-30% I'd guess of paleo-con/libertarian thought (not that all libertarians are conservatives, but some conservatives do identify to differing degrees with libertarianism) where there WOULD on average be fairly strong support for marriage equality. I know it's tempting to cookie cutter things, but there are really distinct factions if you look for them.

StoOge - I guess if someone was going to implement this it'd be a somewhat prima facie view of the proposition. I'm not even sure it'd be useful and again, I'm not sure if I agree with Cooter, but having someone suggest that a proposition may face a legal challenge if adopted strikes me as something worth at least considering.

 

[anaron]

Reading Firefly and Chuck's Adam Baldwin's reaction on twitter has totally ruined him for me.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Well, yes and no. I think, if we're really going to simplify it that much, there are more or less 3 wings of conservative thought. There is the religious right, which is probably at least a plurality (and probably a majority) of the Repulican party, they're going to be opposed to it no matter what. There is the neo-con wing, which has close political ties to the religious right, and then there is about another 25-30% I'd guess of paleo-con/libertarian thought (not that all libertarians are conservatives, but some conservatives do identify to differing degrees with libertarianism) where there WOULD on average be fairly strong support for marriage equality. I know it's tempting to cookie cutter things, but there are really distinct factions if you look for them.

I really don't think your percentages are based off of anything but wishful thinking. The Republican party has been trending towards homogenization, not away from it. I don't think there's even a single Republican congressman who will openly support gay marriage.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Numbers 12:1-16

God punished Moses' sister for her and Aaron badmouthing Moses for marrying an Ethiopian. God forbade interfaith marriages because 'foreigners' worshiped other gods and thus, could corrupt the hearts of the believers. He had nothing against interracial marriage. So to correct your attempt of proving a point, please use something else and not interracial marriages.

Thanks.

Joke post?

 

[VGChampion]

I will never understand why people are so against this. I really hate a lot of people sometimes / a lot of the times.

 

[ZephyrFate]

Numbers 12:1-16

God punished Moses' sister for her and Aaron badmouthing Moses for marrying an Ethiopian. God forbade interfaith marriages because 'foreigners' worshiped other gods and thus, could corrupt the hearts of the believers. He had nothing against interracial marriage. So to correct your attempt of proving a point, please use something else and not interracial marriages.

Thanks.

Regardless of what the Bible actually says, a common argument against interracial marriage was that it was 'against God'. Same thing, here. There's nothing that overtly states in the Bible that gay marriage shouldn't exist, and yet people are inventing ways to make it work.

 

[goomba]

I think that too many people view issues as either inherently conservative or inherently liberal without allowing for nuance. In some ways marriage equality for gay couples IS an inherently conservartive, traditional idea. It can be argued it's about social stability, and strengthening familial bonds, providing a stronger, more secure environment for the children that gay couples are raising and caring for as their own (since they ARE theirs). That's a conservative position on the issue that doesn't even have to go to the liberal analysis of fundamental human rights (I agree with both perspectives on the issue in all honesty), but there is no reason for a liberal to NOT have similar concerns.

Also, it's worth noting that people on both sides of the aisle can oppose various issues considered part of the philosophy of their political position, from abortion to gun control to... anything else.

No I'd say freedom to marry the person of your choice is a definite Liberal idea.

lib·er·al

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

 

[HarryDemeanor]

lesbians say f u

I somehow knew someone was going to say this.

 

[Gaborn]

I really don't think your percentages are based off of anything but wishful thinking. The Republican party has been trending towards homogenization, not away from it. I don't think there's even a single Republican congressman who will openly support gay marriage.

Now that Kolbe is retired you're probably right, at least off the top of my head - but it's not like a huge number of Democratic congressmen support marriage equality.

I think in large part some of this has to do with the average age of a congressperson, they're going to be older, established, and older people are more likely to oppose marriage equality.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

No I'd say freedom to marry the person of your choice is a definite Liberal idea.

lib·er·al

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Yeah that's another thing. The attempt to shoehorn support for gay marriage into traditional conservatism is almost cringe worthy in its awkwardness. The two are oil and water. It doesn't work.

Now that Kolbe is retired you're probably right, at least off the top of my head - but it's not like a huge number of Democratic congressmen support marriage equality.

I think in large part some of this has to do with the average age of a congressperson, they're going to be older, established, and older people are more likely to oppose marriage equality.

You will find allies among Democratic politicians and many more in their base. You will find so few in the Republican camp as to be insignificant. It is very much a "cookie cutter" thing, as you described it.

And none of this has anything to do with Theodore Olson and how he will be viewed at the end of this, which was what I was bringing up in the first place.

 

[Gaborn]

No I'd say freedom to marry the person of your choice is a definite Liberal idea.

lib·er·al

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

I'd say it's a CLASSICALLY liberal idea, yes.

 

[AniHawk]

Awesome news! Now let's get Prop 19 passed.

 

[jiggle]

"fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

well said

 

[speculawyer]

"God is in the mix when couples of the same race unite [but not when mixed race couples do]."

That's not offensive either. Not at all.

Well Obama did not say that. His point was that heterosexual marriage has a long religious history. Gay marriage does not. That is just a fact.



And you didn't answer my question . . . I'll take that as an admission of fake-outrage because you are not religious.

 

[leroy hacker]

No, it bugs me that constitutionality in the US is decided by insulated aristocrats and not by directly accountable representatives like in a parliamentary system.

It bothers you that the US has a written constitution that protects fundamental rights from the whims of a mere majority? I'm not usually so crude, but fuck you. Seriously.

 

[giga]

You guys should read the ruling. It's fucking hilarious. Looks like the defendants were banking on "religion" being the basis for their case.

While proponents vigorously defended the constitutionality of Proposition 8, they did so based on legal conclusions and cross-examinations of some of plaintiffs’ witnesses, eschewing all but a rather limited factual presentation. Proponents argued that Proposition 8 should be evaluated solely by considering its language and its consistency with the “central purpose of marriage, in California and everywhere else, * * * to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.” Doc #172-1 at 21. Proponents asserted that marriage for same-sex couples is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus its denial does not deprive persons seeking such unions of due process. See generally Doc #172-1. Nor, proponents continued, does the exclusion of same-sex couples in California from marriage deny them equal protection because, among other reasons, California affords such couples a separate parallel institution under its domestic partnership statutes. Doc #172-1 at 75 et seq.

At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” Id at 23.

Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. Doc #295 at 13-14. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” Tr 3038:7-8. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.” Tr 3037:25-3040:4.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Well Obama did not say that.

And you didn't answer my question . . . I'll take that as an admission of fake-outrage because you are not religious.

WTF would be the point of fake outrage?

I think he said something shitty, bigoted, totally tone-deaf and offensive to GLBT people. No, I'm not religious. But to imply that hetero relationships are naturally infused with godliness but those for gay people aren't is a big middle finger to GLBT people of faith.

I'm actually surprised I have to spell out why this was a fucked up thing to say. But, by all means, continue to cling to whatever illusions you need to cling to about the president.

 

[goomba]

LOL they make it sound like married couples who choose not to have children should be punished.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

You could say many things about Mercury Fred, but his outrage is never fake. It is authentically that exaggerated.

 

[speculawyer]

You guys should read the ruling. It's fucking hilarious. Looks like the defendants were banking on "religion" being the basis for their case.

yeah . . . Jedi Religion.

When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.”

 

[Earthstrike]

I'm pro gay marriage but these judges are out of control. Is there not someone who reviews these propositions on the constitutionality before they go up for a vote? If it's unconstitutional then why the hell was it on the ballot. What a waste of fucking time and money.

Mathematically you are incorrect.
Lets consider two worlds where the constitutionality of laws is reviewed before hand and one afterhand.
Let's also say the cost of determining the constitutionality of a law is a constant called RC. (Any process which screens potential laws beforehand would have to be just as rigorous as one that reviews laws afterhand).

Let the number of pieces of legislation submitted be Y. In beforehand review the total legal costs will be Y x RC.
In afterhand review world, only some proportion of legislation will be reviewed by the courts. This will be some percentage multiplied by Y. Let's call this percentage P. Total legal costs in afterhand review = P x Y x RC.
P is always less than 100%.
Afterhand review will always cost less time and money.

Therefore your proposal to review the consitutionality of propositions before they are on a ballot would spend more time and money with respect than the way the legality of these laws are currently challenged.

 

[gcubed]

I guess that's why he wanted an increase in funding for aide's services.

thats just bad 3/10

 

[Mercury Fred]

You could say many things about Mercury Fred, but his outrage is never fake. It is authentically that exaggerated.

Gosh, you're right, junior. I should tone it down.

Gay people have all the rights of straight people, they never get beaten to death for simply being who they are and it's not like tens of millions of dollars are spent in order to deny gay people the most basic, simple, legal protections.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[speculawyer]

WTF would be the point of fake outrage?

I think he said something shitty, bigoted, totally tone-deaf and offensive to GLBT people. No, I'm not religious. But to imply that hetero relationships are naturally infused with godliness but those for gay people aren't is a big middle finger to GLBT people of faith.

But you don't believe in god so you can't be offended. But you'll act that way to be the flaming Mercury Fred character.

But worse, it is fake outrage from misinterpretation of the statement.

I'm actually surprised I have to spell out why this was a fucked up thing to say. But, by all means, continue to cling to whatever illusions you need to cling to about the president.

Well you are taking it out of context and trying to imply he is almost a 'god hates fags' guy. It is clear that he was just doing the religious marriage v. legal marriage shuffle.

WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

 

[Patriots7]

Regardless of what the Bible actually says, a common argument against interracial marriage was that it was 'against God'.

Which was a common misconception, owing to the fact that as Shakespeare states, even the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose.
Nowhere does it actually state that the interracial marriage was 'against God.' People took 'foreign' to denote interracial, when the implication was those of foreign descent that did not believe in the one true God.

Same thing, here. There's nothing that overtly states in the Bible that gay marriage shouldn't exist, and yet people are inventing ways to make it work.

...Eh.

I have no desire to argue, it's just trying to imply that God condemns interracial marriage is quite offensive to those of us who are products of interracial marriage.

 

[Gaborn]

But you don't believe in god so you can't be offended. But you'll act that way to be the flaming Mercury Fred character.

But worse, it is fake outrage from misinterpretation of the statement.



Well you are taking it out of context and trying to imply he is almost a 'god hates fags' guy. It is clear that he was just doing the religious marriage v. legal marriage shuffle.

WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

Let me ask you, do you think Obama would support a state, say, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, that wanted to give interracial couples only civil unions instead of marriage? If the answer is no then he's a bigot against gays. Simple as that.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Gosh, you're right, junior.

:lol

I should tone it down.

Gay people have all the rights of straight people, they never get beaten to death for simply being who they are and it's not like tens of millions of dollars are spent in order to deny gay people the most basic, simple, legal protections.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Just to be clear--I have zero respect for you and anything you say after you openly advocated violence against innocents in the wake of Prop 8. In light of that, most sane people would similarly ignore your ranting. You are clearly nuts and just because we happen to agree on marriage equality does not make you worth listening to.

 

[Mercury Fred]

But you don't believe in god so you can't be offended. But you'll act that way to be the flaming Mercury Fred character.

Right and because I'm white I can't get upset about racism.

But worse, it is fake outrage from misinterpretation of the statement.



Well you are taking it out of context and trying to imply he is almost a 'god hates fags' guy. It is clear that he was just doing the religious marriage v. legal marriage shuffle.

WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

And the implication is that this "sacred union" is for straight couples only according to this interview. And gee how generous that his faith is strong enough to allow gay people the separate but equal civil unions. Swell guy.

Just to be clear--I have zero respect for you and anything you say after you openly advocated violence against innocents in the wake of Prop 8. In light of that, most sane people would similarly ignore your ranting. You are clearly nuts and just because we happen to agree on marriage equality does not make you worth listening to.

Darn it! I didn't realize you have zero respect for me. My day was going great until I learned that. Now it's ruined.

 

[Gaborn]

Darn it! I didn't realize you have zero respect for me. My day was going great until I learned that. Now it's ruined.

At least you're not Canadian. Then he'd REALLY hate you. :lol

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

At least you're not Canadian. Then he'd REALLY hate you. :lol

Now now, I insist you cease this cliquish behavior--it's practically apartheid in here.

 

[besada]

It bothers you that the US has a written constitution that protects fundamental rights from the whims of a mere majority? I'm not usually so crude, but fuck you. Seriously.

 

[Gaborn]

Now now, I insist you cease this cliquish behavior--it's practically apartheid in here.

If the analogy is apt enough for Bishop Desmond Tutu I really don't see a problem with it. Or, as he put it: Homophobia is as unjust as that crime against humanity, apartheid

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

If the analogy is apt enough for Bishop Desmond Tutu I really don't see a problem with it. Or, as he put it: Homophobia is as unjust as that crime against humanity, apartheid

Homosexuality being legally punishable by death is an apt comparison with apartheid and then some. But if you would read that legitimately brilliant and moving article, you would notice it has utterly no relation to how you like to abuse the term.

Can we go back to arguing over the relation of homosexuality to conservatism? I think we'd find each other much more agreeable there.

 

[BobTheFork]

Proponents asserted that marriage for same-sex couples is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus its denial does not deprive persons seeking such unions of due process

wow.
No matter how mad you get, wishing bad things on other people is wrong.
No matter how mad you get, wishing bad things on other people is wrong.
No matter how mad you get, wishing bad things on other people is wrong.

This thread is making me remind myself of that fact several times.

 

[Gaborn]

Homosexuality being legally punishable by death is an apt comparison with apartheid and then some. But if you would read that legitimately brilliant and moving article, you would notice it has utterly no relation to how you like to abuse the term.

I disagree. Civil unions are a form of apartheid, that is, separteness, by their very nature. They're designed solely for the purpose of dividing people based on an arbitrary, unnnecessary distinction that serves no purpose other than to express the SEPARATENESS of the couples from other couples. That's more or less the exact purpose of apartheid laws, to keep minority groups separate, apart, from other parts of society.

Can we go back to arguing over the relation of homosexuality to conservatism?

Nope, it's really not that interesting a debate.

 

[Zero Hero]

Time to break out the good stuff:

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I disagree. Civil unions are a form of apartheid, that is, separteness, by their very nature. They're designed solely for the purpose of dividing people based on an arbitrary, unnnecessary distinction that serves no purpose other than to express the SEPARATENESS of the couples from other couples. That's more or less the exact purpose of apartheid laws, to keep minority groups separate, apart, from other parts of society.

You've said as much before. I'm not the only one to consider it an inability or unwillingness to accept the true breadth and horror of apartheid. Why you are not content with interracial marriage prohibition as an analogy is beyond me.

Nope, it's really not that interesting a debate.

It gets much more interesting when we involve the conservatives who get caught with their pants down and cocks inside other men.

 

[timetokill]

I disagree. Civil unions are a form of apartheid, that is, separteness, by their very nature. They're designed solely for the purpose of dividing people based on an arbitrary, unnnecessary distinction that serves no purpose other than to express the SEPARATENESS of the couples from other couples. That's more or less the exact purpose of apartheid laws, to keep minority groups separate, apart, from other parts of society.

So, just to be clear -- when I argue that we should have civil unions, but that's the only thing the government should recognize (everyone gets civil unions, "marriage" becomes a federally unrecognized term) -- is that an acceptable outcome in your opinion?

 

[Gaborn]

You've said as much before. I'm not the only one to consider it an inability or unwillingness to accept the true breadth and horror of apartheid. Why you are not content with interracial marriage prohibition as an analogy is beyond me.

Honestly, I DO prefer the interracial marriage analogy, but since you brought up apartheid I'm happy to continue the thought, as you said I've used it before.

It gets much more interesting when we involve the conservatives who get caught with their pants down and cocks inside other men.

Much like the Dems who came to "clean up the corruption" and have Rangel and Waters to deal with.

timetokill - I think it's morally acceptable, but unrealistic - I don't see heterosexual couples giving up their legally recognized marriages any time soon. I also don't think it would be fair if, for example, someone wanted gays to go first. If that was to be the case it should be for everyone, and all at once.

 

[Hitokage]

Much like the Dems who came to "clean up the corruption" and have Rangel and Waters to deal with.

Democrats are your ordinarily corrupt and cowardly politicians, though.

 

[Gaborn]

Democrats are your ordinarily corrupt and cowardly politicians, though.

I think both sides are ordinary corrupt, cowardly politicians to be honest, and any claim that the other side is worse all too often results in a fresh scandal from your own side.