Quote :

"For one thing it looks kind of separate but equal, but civil unions do not include all the same benefits as marriage. And no matter how many times some people say they want civil unions that include all the same benefits, no realization of civil union laws ever has."

And both of these are clearly a problem. Appeasing gay marriage opponents has inevitably resulted in a parallel, inferior institution (from a legal standpoint) each time. Likewise, I imagine that we would agree that this is inherently so by creating two parallel institutions.

However, when you look at the largest source of angst over the issue by opponents, it's the appropriation of the institution and term "marriage." Yes, the state appropriated marriage long, long ago. But regardless - that's your sticking point.

Seems to me the solution more likely to appease opponents is to get the state entirely out of the marriage business and grant "civil unions" to everyone. That way, given the number of interested parties now, one can be fairly sure the legal benefits are retained for all parties.

Quote :

"I think the government should be allowed to use the word marriage for any couple it marries, but that religious institutions should have the choice of whether or not they will recognize that marriage or perform a religious ceremony to go along with it."

Why should the government get ownership over the term? Again, to you or I this is simply semantics, but I think it's an important distinction overall to the larger community. Marriage, as an institution, has existed long before the state decided to appropriate it for its own purposes.

Looking at it another way; the sacrament of marriage in a church is an entirely separate affair from the host of legal and social benefits that comes from the state recognizing a union. And to many, it is this first and foremost - hence all the argument about the "institution" of marriage. So why the rush to appropriate it, rather than simply decoupling the church and state and granting everyone the same legal institution (i.e., "civil unions.")

4/4/2009 11:34:12 AM

^
I agree that the solution is to get the state entirely out of the marriage business, but I don't see why the term "marriage" should only be non-secular.... I mean, sure, it might piss off those that use the term to refer solely to the religious institution and regard that as being more important than the legal sense of the term.... but fuck them. Why do they get the term?

4/4/2009 12:18:47 PM

Quote :

"Seems to me the solution more likely to appease opponents is to get the state entirely out of the marriage business and grant "civil unions" to everyone."

Yeah, that would be nice, but it'll never happen. Those in favor of marriage equality get branded as "anti-marriage" enough, if they were actually pushing for getting rid of marriage, instead of extending civil marriage to everyone they'd never stand a chance.

Marriage has meant a lot of different things to a lot of different religions, and atheists get married all the time without putting churches in an uproar. And governments have recognized marriages in some form or fashion for sometime as well. So I'm fine with governments having marriages that are understood to be civil in nature, and religions deciding on whether or not they want to extend their blessing to it.

4/4/2009 12:30:40 PM

^don't worry about him. Libertarians don't actually care about the realities of getting something done

4/4/2009 1:45:22 PM

Quote :

"^don't worry about him. Libertarians don't actually care about the realities of getting something done"

Yeah, because proposing a way around the current logjam obviously shows I don't care about reality.

Whatever, asshole.

4/4/2009 1:59:54 PM

Quote :

"(CNN) – Iowa Rep. Steve King condemned his state Supreme Court's Friday decision to lift a decade-long ban on same-sex marriage, saying it puts the state in danger of becoming a "gay marriage Mecca." "This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends," King said in statement. "Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/republican-warns-of-gay-marriage-mecca/

Oy vey

4/5/2009 10:38:17 AM

+1 for getting government out of all marriages

4/5/2009 11:00:41 AM

Quote :

"This is an unconstitutional ruling"

Quote :

"Iowa law says "

hmm?

4/5/2009 11:55:51 AM

If there is one thing to understand about Iowa politics, it's that Rep. Steve King is generally an embarrassment. This is nearly universally true, regardless of the issue.

4/5/2009 12:02:46 PM

Quote :

"This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends"

A unanimous judicial decision, written by a judge appointed by a republican governor, in a state that isn't in one of the "liberal" coast states... yeah that is as activist as it gets.

4/5/2009 3:54:09 PM

I understand your personal connections here, Supplanter, but I really wish you post about something more than gay-rights issues. It makes you look so nakedly self-interested that one can't help but wonder what kind of positions you might hold if situations were different for you

4/5/2009 10:32:15 PM

I didn't collect over 12,000 posts talking about gay-rights issues - my guess is much less than half would be about gay rights stuff. Nor did I build up 30 some pages of posts in the soapbox talking about gay-rights issues, although I will grant with prop 8 in nov, my getting married in March, & with this Iowa & Vermont thing happening now I have talked about gay rights related issues more recently.

I've made no secret to the tww that I'm gay, I've posted wedding pictures & talked about it occasionally over many years. I think the strength of an argument is independent of the person it comes from and that people can evaluate what I say based on the strength of that argument.

If a gay person shouldn't discuss the news of ruling in Iowa or Vermont, then who should? Would you ask that women not be in favor of women's suffrage because its just a little too transparent? As a conservative I'm sure you've defended some republicans or attacked some democrats over the years on tww. But again I think it should come to the quality to the argument, rather than an appeal to the personal characteristics of the argument's author.

Quote :

"hey, I am about to post that you are homosexual in TSB, and it's in good taste, but do you have a problem w/ me doing that?"

When you sent me that pm, I wonder why you sent it to me when you did not wait for a response... also I do not find it in good taste if the whole point was to go after my character instead of the strength of my argument.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 6:20 AM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 6:19:40 AM

Quote :

"It makes you look so nakedly self-interested that one can't help but wonder what kind of positions you might hold if situations were different for you"

haha - would you say that to a black person in 1950, fighting for an end to segregation, or to a woman in 1900 fighting for the right to vote?
"god woman, all you talk about is 'voting this' and 'voting that'. You're so self-interested. Makes you wonder if you'd be so interested in this topic if your situation was different..... and by that i mean if you were born a man"

4/6/2009 8:21:11 AM

Quote :

"I didn't collect over 12,000 posts talking about gay-rights issues - my guess is much less than half would be about gay rights stuff. Nor did I build up 30 some pages of posts in the soapbox talking about gay-rights issues, although I will grant with prop 8 in nov, my getting married in March, & with this Iowa & Vermont thing happening now I have talked about gay rights related issues more recently."

Give me a break. The first three pages of your TSB history are practically nothing but threads directly related to this topic.

Quote :

"If a gay person shouldn't discuss the news of ruling in Iowa or Vermont, then who should? "

It's one thing to talk about. It's entirely another to ONLY talk about it. That's kind of, you know, the point.

Quote :

"When you sent me that pm, I wonder why you sent it to me when you did not wait for a response..."

Actually, I changed the post to remove a direct reference to homosexuality. Twas implied.

Quote :

"also I do not find it in good taste if the whole point was to go after my character instead of the strength of my argument."

Show me where I attacked your character. If you are so touchy about your sexuality that you think someone referencing it is an "attack on your character," then you need to reevaluate your choices. And yes, I said CHOICES. deal with it.

4/6/2009 2:32:33 PM

Pointing out that I’m gay isn’t an attack on my character, rather suggesting that the merit of my written arguments or statements hinges on & is lessened by personal characteristics about me was the part in question.

We have both agreed that my recent pages of posts, if you limit it to the soap box, are more often than not about gay rights due to the recent events I already mentioned. I've also discussed music, battlestar galatica, apartment recommendations, grad school at ncsu, local blogs, evolution, comic books, marketing, the 2008 elections, and said good morning in the morning crew thread several times in the same time period. By and large my posts in the soap box have been about democratic politics in the state & nationwide, followed probably by religion, and then by gay rights related issues. But even if it were 100% about gay rights, that wouldn't affect the merit of what I have to say, only the quality of the content would do that. So let this not be a point of contention any longer.

But trust me when I say that I'm not so "touchy" than any post you post on this message board would ever bother me, deal with it. Do you really want to continue to discuss me? If so I'd suggest you make a new thread, since this one is about Iowa & Vermont, rather than Supplanter.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : repeated word deleted]

4/6/2009 3:40:40 PM

to be fair, though, i've also never questioned the merits of your argument, either... The only thing I've questioned is your motivations. As if to say "come on, man, post about something else."

4/6/2009 3:46:55 PM

god forbid he be passionate about an issue that directly affects him.

4/6/2009 4:16:14 PM

And I am passionate about global fearmongering. But, I post about more than simply that in here.

4/6/2009 4:17:00 PM

so what?

4/6/2009 4:28:34 PM

that was kind of my point...

4/6/2009 4:28:58 PM

that you didn't have a point?

4/6/2009 4:30:39 PM

ummm... no... that he only posts about one thing. and only one thing. and that it's kind of annoying.

at least salisburyboy mixed it up every now and than

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2009 4:31:28 PM

and i'm saying "so what?" that you post about other things and he posts mostly about one thing.

you should debate him on his points rather than his posting habits.

i mean i understand that lots of people would rather make arguments personal than informed, but i always thought that was a bad thing.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 4:33:25 PM

I'm not debating him. I'm saying "fucking post about something else. it's annoying."

4/6/2009 4:36:14 PM

why the fuck do you care?

4/6/2009 4:38:17 PM

why the fuck do you care?

4/6/2009 4:47:41 PM

The republican governor of Vermont has vetoed it. I guess he'd rather something like this come through the judicial branch than the legislative one. The veto override vote is coming tomorrow, and its much too close to call which way it will go.

Quote :

"come on, man, post about something else"

Your escalated from that, to this without me saying anything in between?

Quote :

"fucking post about something else. it's annoying"

If you want to judge people's entire history on TWW by narrowing it down to the last few pages of posts they made, and focus it on one section then I can see how it would all start to look the same. I mean take aaronburro for example, if you look at the last 100 posts in the soapbox he made, over 50 of them are in threads that have the name Obama in the title.

If you don't care for a topic I've posted, you can stay out of it, or you can engage me in debate. But coming in the thread to say you're annoyed with me accomplishes nothing. Let it go. Only the first paragraph of this post even has anything to do with the topic & I'd rather things not get side tracked any further. Send me all the pm's you want to tell me how you think I should post, and what topics I should discuss, but it's entirely pointless to publicly debate the frequency at which you are okay with me discussing any given topic.

4/6/2009 8:59:38 PM

The veto override was successful.

WHY MUST ACTIVIST LEGISLATURES DESTROY OUR GREAT NATION? THIS IS LIKE SLAPPING GOD IN THE FACE.

4/7/2009 1:37:29 PM

give me a break, Sup. Practically every other thread in TSB has "Obama" in the title. Not every other thread in TSB is about gay marriage. give it up.

4/7/2009 1:41:12 PM

why cant we give those people the tax benefits etc of being married but just call it a civil union?

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2009 1:51:43 PM

because laws aren't around to make people feel better about their own moral choices. if all the benefits of a civil contract are the same legally, then call it the same thing. (i feel the same way for instance about calling rape "rape" even if it is done by a woman -- in NC women cannot commit rape by the definition of the law)

and oh yeah. congrats vermont. i can only hope the rest of the country follows suit soon enough.

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2009 2:38:48 PM

Quote :

"i can only hope the rest of the country follows suit soon enough."

Didn't have to wait long for the next step.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html?hpid=topnews

Quote :

"D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions. Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation's capital. But yesterday's vote, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes relocated gay married couples as married."

4/7/2009 3:01:13 PM

Dude stop posting about teh gays, you're arousing annoying aaronburro.

4/7/2009 4:25:27 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marriage8-2009apr08,0,3646071.story

Quote :

" Vermont Legislature gives final OK to gay marriage Lawmakers override the governor's veto of a bill allowing same-sex marriage. Vermont is now one of four states allowing gay marriage -- and the first to do it by legislative, rather than court, action The Vermont Legislature voted today to permit same-sex couples to marry--making it the first state in the union to legalize gay marriage through a vote of lawmakers rather than a court action. ..."

4/7/2009 5:38:30 PM

So which wingut radio host has flipped out over this on the radio so far? I need a good laugh so I would be tempted to catch their show. My money would be on Micheal Savage which would be sad because he is the one whom I can stand the least.

4/7/2009 5:49:53 PM

You know what? Good on Vermont lawmakers for showing some initiative. And some balls, compared to others.

4/7/2009 8:21:29 PM

Quote :

"So which wingut radio host has flipped out over this on the radio so far? I need a good laugh so I would be tempted to catch their show. My money would be on Micheal Savage which would be sad because he is the one whom I can stand the least."

His show is an act you know.

Interesting to see Iowa as one of the new battlegrounds on this issue. It's going to be interesting to see how this effects 2012's election, with the right in Iowa likely being mobilized on this and more willing to back a social conservative who would be more stringent on the issue (Huckabee repeat?).

4/7/2009 8:24:03 PM

IOWA
PRESIDENTIAL
WATCH

4/7/2009 8:53:47 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business altogether"

4/7/2009 8:58:08 PM

^

I'd like to see the government out of the war business too, but for very practical reasons it's an ongoing concern.

Some here may miss a very basic point about the gay marriage movement. As a point of reflection for policy makers/wonks/etc., it's endlessly fascinating to introspect on the varieties of forms that marriage or its functional equivalent may take in civil society. For those of us who cannot be married, we want to be married now, god damn it. Generally speaking, the people who are pursuing this in the courts aren't rogue ideologues, they are actual citizens who are pissed off and they want redress, now. We are a few American Centuries too late on getting the "right idea" in the right way.

And frankly, I rather like the verve and spirit of the largely conservative judiciaries that, on no uncertain terms, recognize the gay marriage problem for what it is: a chance to do the right thing instead of repeating the sad history of Plessy v. Ferguson. The courts are not the end-all, be-all of our democratic system. But they are full of credible and educated minds, and in so refuting the principles of the opposition, they have thoroughly denied them an intellectual and constitutional basis from which to argue. In this way the opposition cannot proceed the way the racial segregationists did before.

Let's face it: all the gay marriage opponents have left now is "might makes right." Vermont passed marriage with a veto override, but let's recall that the California legislature also approved a similar measure only to have its Republican governor veto it and push the issue off to the courts. And then the grass roots was denied intellectual validation by the conservative California state supreme court, and was left with nothing but naked mob rule in the form of Proposition 8, a battle they barely won.

4/8/2009 2:39:29 AM

This is the National Organization for Marriage's auditions for their new ad in response to the recent gains in recognition of marriage equality. Watching them all claim to be frightened Californian doctors & Massachusetts parents is rather amusing.

[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2009 4:04:27 PM

this video makes me want to hulk smash the monitor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI&fmt=18

4/9/2009 5:31:39 PM

Are they allowing polygamy?

4/12/2009 4:30:52 AM

Not anymore. They redefined marriage

4/12/2009 9:05:11 PM

pro-life
anti-abortion
pro-choice
anti-marriage equality
global warming
climate change
energy indepedence

etc etc etc

am i the only one tired of these stupid ass labels and catch phrases?

post inspired by supplanter posting "anti-marriage equality", which i'm sure they would rather be called "pro nongay marriage"

[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 5:08 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2009 5:03:55 AM

since this is the first thread i found about this issue....

there's been a huge controversy about Miss California's remarks at the Miss USA pageant about gay marriage (probably those who read the gossip columns are hearing about it more than others).

Roland Martin had a really interesting editorial on cnn.com today about the whole situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/martin.miss.california/index.html

4/22/2009 11:02:59 AM

Quote :

"I agree, lets do this in the taxcode as well!!!!! Oh too much equality there?"

You have a fucking medical degree, you should be smarter than thinking equality in tax code = paying the same percent on income.

Quote :

"I understand your personal connections here, Supplanter, but I really wish you post about something more than gay-rights issues. It makes you look so nakedly self-interested that one can't help but wonder what kind of positions you might hold if situations were different for you"

If he were a chucklefuck Christian hillbilly, he'd have chucklefuck Christian hillbilly values. Hell of an observation you have there.

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2009 12:10:06 PM

he's not a Medical Doctor - he's a Doctor of Optometry (i'm assuming), and O.D. It's like a Doctor of Chiropracty, a D.C. They get the label "Doctor", but they are not Medical Doctors.

4/22/2009 12:23:13 PM

Maybe that's an explanation.

4/22/2009 1:02:19 PM

Quote :

"there's been a huge controversy about Miss California's remarks "

link? i haven't heard of this...i dont follow miss america though...did she bash gay marriage or say she wished we had it?

4/22/2009 1:07:10 PM