Dudde

Nice, updated two hours ago -

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses/index.html

totally weak, again, I don't usually take CNN at face value, but they're usually generally right

Pangloss; I know, I am on the wrong side this AIG thing even with conservatives. I happen to believe in Law and the Constitution and the idea Federal Government was never intended to be involved with business or todays Corporate World, especially the executive.

While I would agree with you on this point most of the time, the simple fact is that the government has $170 Billion intervened with this company already - as long as you're accepting that kind of government assistance, I think they should have some degree of say with how you want to waste it

No one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA. Please, please, please explain why it should. And please make your explanation more compelling than a 3:51 success ratio.

I'll agree that the majority of people are against same sex marriages, even though it really has no affect whatsoever on their own personal lives or beliefs. However, the founding fathers created the U.S constitution and the three branches of governent because they knew popularity votes would always be discriminatory against somebody when given the chance. As stated in this argument and the previous, the people have a right to vote by majority to amend certain laws and pass initiatives, but in order to re-write any part of the constitution to deny rights to a particular segment of the population, there's supposed to be jurisdiction either by the Judicial branch of government, or legislative, to interpret and/or re-write the laws and pass through the legislative houses.

And again, while that's still a majority vote in the process, there are a lot more people looking at the legal definitions than a popularity vote by uninformed, or extremely biased, individuals.

***

I suggest you take a look at those sodomy laws once more, the ones that say essentially

Any sexual act not leading to procreation can be considered sodomy

I hardly, and absolutely know for a fact beyond reason, that there would be very few and if any heterosexual couples who would ever abide by this. Ever.

I don't know how many of you are ahead of me on this, but I thought it was an interesting article, (posted from CNN because I found it there first)

Bug Zapper

I don't know if I would be for or against it ecologically...but my skin almost cried with joy

anybody think this doo-hickey may become feasible someday? Personally I'm a bit skeptical:

The laser, which has been dubbed a "weapon of mosquito destruction" fires at mosquitoes once it detects the audio frequency created by the beating of its wings.

 

The laser beam then destroys the mosquito, burning it on the spot.

Ophiolite is correct; the "Battery: DOA" portion of the contract means that if your battery arrives, or is replaced later and arrives and is not holding a charge, or overheating, that they will replace the battery for you. Usually the length of time will be specified by the computer vendor on the contract - the company I work for has a 1 year basic policy, or 90-day if it's a 3rd party manufactured, after that the warranty defaults to the Manufacturer. It kind of depends on who the vendor is.

This is a useful resource to summarize some of those lacking rights: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

There were actually some good facts on that page, thanks for posting it. Toward the bottom is a link "Difference between a marriage and a civil union", and has a few good points.

I always miss the good stuff.

Nah, you're better off, it wasn't that exciting;)

As per the poll and OP's original question, I think if the Federal government recognizes rights for those who have a marriage license, it's already got a hand in marriage - and those are the rights the GLBT community are wanting to sport as well, it's not all just about the word

Merged post follows:

But.. wait, so, isn't the constitution *federal*? as in, it is for ALL the states..? So if a state has a certain law which is not recognized federally, how would federal rights be given? Federal government does not recognize it, therefore federal rights are not given.

There is a Federally upheld constitution, but there are also state constitutions as well, so states can decide how to individually manage things in their own borders as long as it doesn't step on the toes of Federal regulations.

as to the parts of it iNow is referring to, The Full Faith and Credit Clause says that states must recognize legally binding contracts and etc. produced from other states.

The Supremacy Clause basically indicates that federal laws, constitution, and treaties are the law of the land, and state regulations cannot impede on them.

Increasing the pressure on A.I.G., New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo demanded on Monday that the insurer release the names of the executives in A.I.G.’s Financial Products subsidiary who are to receive the bonuses, their job descriptions and details about their performance. In a letter to Edward M. Liddy, the company’s current chief executive, Mr. Cuomo said that if he did not receive the information by 4 p.m. he would issue subpoenas demanding compliance.

NICE!

This is an awesome move, thanks for bringing it up

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything. Isn't that the job of those who want to change existing laws?

You are the one wanting to change the existing laws - as pointed out before, they already support same-sex marriage

Also, this thread was definitely not created to discuss same sex marriages, but the discussion of whether or not the government should drop the word 'marriage' legally or not. I don't see a logical reason why they should.

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything.

I don't see a point in continuing this debate if that's your standpoint, why do you keep posting nonsense if you don't want to prove anything?

. But not even that would be good enough you, because if SCOTUS were to support an affirmative ruling on Prop 8 you and your ilk would not accept it.

an affirmative ruling dictates a re-writing of the California constitution, which necessitates a lot more than a majority vote of the state's citizens - an affirmative response would be a disappointment for the entire country.

Also, ilk? surely you can come up with better than that, based on your previous analysis and breakdown of the constitutionality of the current topic

But that's exactly what the law does; it treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. The current marriage laws apply equally to both groups. Now, it's true that same sexes cannot get married under existing laws, but that condition applies equally to both heteros and homos. If it didn't it would be a blatant case of bigotry.

 

But you're saying (I think) that a gay man doesn't want to marry a woman because she's not the person he loves. He wants to marry the man he loves. Well, in that respect he has a limitation under current laws. But a hetero man is not without a similar limitation: he can't marry his sister, even if she is the one he loves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem strongly biased against same sex couples. The only people I've seen keep this argument are the ones who don't believe they should be forced to live in a society with gays or lesbians, and while I support your ability to state your opinion...it's ridiculous.

The entire argument was already and is still being fought by the Attorney General in the state of California along with several groups of petitioners, but you don't seem to want to read any prior arguments, so I'll break his down - not in exact wording because I don't have time to find it again, but I will if you really doubt me that much.

Stating that homosexual and heterosexual people have the same rights is blatantly fallacious. Because a heterosexual man already wants to marry a heterosexual woman, the current laws in no way impede on his right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness as defined in the U.S constitution. A homosexual man however, does not want to marry a heterosexual woman, but wants to marry a homosexual man, which the heterosexual man had no interest in doing in the first place. In this way does the definition differ - stating that one group can do what makes them happy, and the other cannot.

If you aren't gay and wanting to be married, I personally see no reason why we're even having this discussion - does this damage your mental or physical well being in some way? Please, we had a pretty interesting debate to which I've linked a few times already, I urge you to skim through to see if you may be repeating what was already argued.

Nice, Invader FTW!

Good to see a lot of new faces, hope you guys stick around and post a lot! ...1000 posts in a year might be a bit wacky...

I predict that in the future a man will be able to marry his brother, but not his sister. The former marriage will be allowed for on same-sex marriage principles, while the latter will be disallowed on the principles of incest.

 

Now, I ask you, is that fair?

wtf:confused:

Why would you even try to use that as an argument? The brother would be disallowed the same as the sister would be, they're both incest.

I agree with ParanioA

On the other hand, it does seem that those who want the government to keep the word marriage, also want it to be defined their way. 2 of the 4 people who want the government to keep the word and define it, want it defined their way. I wonder if there is anyone who thinks the government should keep the word marriage, who doesn't also want it defined their way?

 

On the other hand, keeping the word but not defining it would IMO mean that it is up to the courts to interpret it one way or the other, rather than the legislative branch.

Fair enough, and I think I agree with you on that point. The judicial system seems better suited to protected the citizens, as the legislative branch just throws paper around and votes.

The reason I didn't say that I'd want to keep and define the word, is because that leaves too much room for those inequalities we were talking about earlier - I would rather staple the word so it applies to the population, and discontinue the whole 'who does it apply to' thing personally.

Nice,

Google, Levi Strauss, and the California Chamber of Commerce are in support of the petitioners trying to have Prop. 8 taken out.

There's also a very good Proposition 8 thread started with a lot of arguments and resources, including this page, with a great degree of documentation on the recent petition. (this link was provided by iNow and has a wealth of information)

are gay people accommodated in that same manner as heterosexual couples under existing regulations because they can marry people of the opposite sex?

I promise I saw that in one of the documents I was reading at my last mentioned site, but I can't find it since I read like 10 documents and I forgot where it was - I'll look for it later. In short, my answer (and theirs) is no.

EDIT: I forgot the whole reason I looked into this thread - not that I can, or it matters, but I've changed my view to reflect the vote to keep the word Marriage. It makes increasing sense to me as I continue to learn.

There's actually a fairly interesting same-sex marriage thread, more geared toward proposition 8 in California, but it has a lot of interesting input on the topic besides. I'm still interested in the subject, but it's like creating it in another thread, now I have to look two places

Have you ever provided any support for this opinion?

I encourage you to check out the thread about Proposition 8, there was a substantial amount of support going both ways

I tend to agree with a lot of your point, but I see merit in the trains at least in densley populated areas where they have a good effect. You can create jobs for building/maintaining and working the rail line, generate revenue for the business through commuters having a cheaper, more economic transportation, you can also create tax revenue and put back to the fund it came out of.

Somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken

On the bright side, now we're probably too bankrupt to go starting any new wars.

Nice:cool:

I don't know if I've effective time to approve or disapprove of the guy yet, but I've always hated gallup polls for being stupid:-)

 

I'm curious. What was it that you read that you found absurd? (I presume it was something you found at this link)

It was indeed actually. I confess I've lost sleep as I find a lot of the documents listed on that site as very interesting to read and see what exactly the different arguments are.

I have to say that so far, my favorite read has been the "Attorney General's Response to Amicus Curiae Briefs." It was notable that he used Article 1, Section 1 of the California(or US) Constitution to open; the section states:

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy"

Because after reading further, I see Section 1 Article 7.5, enacted after Prop. 8 took hold, stating,

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

The general argument for the first part of the paper is centralized around the fact that as this so outrageously conflicts with each other, that the proposition doesn't necessitate an amendment to, but revision of, the existing constitution. As a quote from that same paper:

As in Livermore v. Waite, supra, if proposition 8 is incompatible with the guarantees of article 1, section 1 - as respondent contends it to be-then it may be stricken as ultra vires, notwithstanding that the measure is not a "revision" of the constitution

There were actually many, many more pages in that document, 56 I think, I just didn't think it would be polite to quote the entire thing> I do urge you to read this document if you haven't already though, I think the A G makes a good point throughout his response, thus why I stated earlier I was hoping for the judge to throw this out. There's a lot more I wanted to cite, but I don't want an enormous post that confuses more than states. The document presented by "Honor Love Cherish," listed under January 15th on that same link, presented some good personal insight as well, check it out if you get a chance.

I did, however, want to cite one more section in the first article of the California Constitution, section 4, which should be common knowledge, but:

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without

discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of

conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent

with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion.(italics added)

I might be interpreting all kinds of things wrong, but I see this as a clear denial of rights based on the discrimination of a minority group, something our constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically setup to protect against in the first place really. The people arguing in favor of the Prop., not necessarily or specifically ones in this forum - I mean legally, are celebrating the integrity of an institution - but institution of what? Of marriage? Isn't that like putting a "no girls with red hair" sign up on a club house to protect its integrity? Something everybody can use freely except a certain group, and because of something normal to them and beyond their control.

Sorry if this is all gibberish. The main point is that, to me, and hopefully the Judicial Branch, Proposition 8 does look like a revision to the Constitution, as opposed to merely an amendment - a fact of which I hope is recognized and used to remove it.

I also don't see California as a state recognizing common law marriage, I don't see that as a valid argument to use in this case at all.

Also, I took this from another site but seems to pertain to what you were saying

Common law marriage is permitted in a minority of states. To be defined as a common law marriage within the states listed below, the two parties must: agree that they are married, live together, and hold themselves out as husband and wife.

This isn't defining anything regarding a man and a woman. yours, as stated,

1) Live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)

2) Hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and

3) intend to be married.

Doesn't indicate one man and one woman in any sequence

I don't necessarily think the general consensus is to have the law do one thing, and the people do another (although it may be) - what I was referring to was more of defining the act so to speak. Any two adults who become legally bonded in the eyes of the law, such as a marriage does now.

We don't really want to drop the word itself, just the legal definition of the word. The previous and past marriages would still be defined and legal under such a definition, civil union would work perfectly if that's what they decided on

I voted for the government to change the word, as the arguments are compelling to do so. Most simply, I agree with the fact that the government can issue a certificate or license to make the union legally binding, and then let the masses decide what to call it.

As has been pointed out, it shouldn't matter how the government defines it, it should be an encompassing term that defines the legal aspect

You're not understanding. If they didn't conceive or denounce it, then they did not intend it either. Laws are to be interpreted by their intent. The reason is because the meaning of words change, brand new ideas surface after laws were created, societies change, values change - the culture changes constantly while the document of our laws does not. We did that on purpose too. The value of the constitution is in it's "record"; the static nature of recording principles.

No, I do understand what you mean. I just don't think we can assume that because they didn't say anything, or intend it, that they would've written it out to begin with. Old definitions can be wrong in today's world - I still hold by my statement that we should learn from the past, not live by it.

by the by, smoking faggots is hardly relevant to the current discussion, as I'm sure the definition of the word would be defined in the legislation, not to mention that laws don't usually flesh out using slang.

still, we digress, I've checked out some of that information that iNow linked to, and I'm really hoping the judge will just laugh and throw this back to be re-written, and re-voted on, it sounds pretty absurd to me with the current writing.

No, it's all about winning the cake game.

Oh. Well then I lose, I'm not much of a cake guy, although carrot cake is yummy

I believe if same-sex unions were part of the intent of marriage laws, it would have been made clear. I do not believe they simply felt no need to specify, depending on the word "marriage" to cover same-sex unions. Any lawyer worth minimum wage could see the overt obscurity in that word. To me, this is because marriage laws were drafted at a time when the notion of homosexual unions were not realistically conceivable. Therefore, not the intent of the law.

It's also possible that they just didn't care, they didn't necessarily specify only a man and a woman either. If they had, it would be the same as writing "no same sex marriages."

just because some people a long time ago didn't conceive or denounce it, doesn't mean you should assume they would have if they'd thought about it at the time. We won't move forward by restricting ourselves to what somebody might have thought about before anyone in the modern world was a thought

Fixed...I'm sure you meant "could" and not "had to"

Oh yeah.. Necessity is never actually the most fun of options, good point,

Thanks:D

I'm not sure I can agree with the argument that the church and its followers may be offended by the use of the word 'marriage' by same sex marriages - because there are more people than one religion has that actually uses the word. My mother is a Buddhist, friends that are Jewish (which ... isn't that different I guess) and I have friends that are Jahova's Witnesses. I know a lot of people in different religions and philosophies who accept same sex marriages with the same word - which faith or race of people have we given proprietorship of the word over to?

I think prop. 8, hopefully, will be shot down by the courts or legislature on grounds that it is, in fact, more than a simple amendment - bring in a high school english teacher and the day should be won, it doesn't seem to be a minor amendment to me

Here's probably the best resource:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/s...file/prop8.htm

Thanks!

I think what actually counts here are the times when you remember having several more cakes.

Was that a fat joke

That is pretty sweet actually, I can applaud his effort in that arena.

If there were a good way to make Americans fiscally responsible in like a year, I would volunteer for free to get that in place - even people around me everyday, I see all these horrible and stupid decisions, and I'm definitely not an economist - I don't think the problem will let up until more consumers become a little more economically savvy