Interesting ploy to force gay marriage to the forefront

[RoeBear]

I heard on Fox that some locality won't issue any marriage licenses until gays are allowed to marry also.

[Supormom]

1. I'll bet faux was 100% behind it, too!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. especially since both candidates for presidency are against it

theres an interesting argument

GAY MARRIAGE, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT:

KErry: no to gay marriage

Bush: NO to gay marriage

Big debate there


(much sarcasm)

[kiahzero]

12. How's the Kool-Aid taste?

I ask, because you seemed to have imbibed the "Kerry=Bush" flavor.

[robnycny]

3. Benton County, Oregon

I believe.

[oxymoron]

4. Yes, Benton County.

Here's another thread: http://tinylink.com/?E46jOM0aOA

Damn, I miss Oregon.

[mulethree]

5. well, bush ...

Bush isn't just NO, he proposes that with all the crap wrong with this country, that we should put a bunch of effort into the first constitutional amendment in decades - to say no to Gay Marriage.

So a big NO, but with a pass the buck to congress who surely have better things to spend their time on, no?

The problem is that it's being targeted at Gays, to allow or disallow them to "marry". Why? If me and my brother, or(and?) my business partner wish to form some "social contract" or "non-business partnership" that equates to what most states consider marriage, why not? There are surely plenty of marriages of convenience out there.

What does federal law say about marriage now? Its not in the constitution and is a matter of the individual states. It's a "social institution" but if it isn't written down it isn't law.

Why do we tax people differently based on marriage status? Why do spouses have rights that you can't instead have granted to your friend, brother, aunt, roommate or lover?

The biggest issue I've seen regarding marriage was that some of the western states were required to include prohibitions against polygamy into their constitutions as a condition to entrance into the Union. I don't understand that much either. What skin is it off my nose if my muslim neighbor and his 3 wives want a 4-way marriage? If the Commune across the street decides that all 9 of them are committed partners with equal interest in their household and children?

[foxy]

6. I have a view on this subject..could someone tell me if I way off?

My way of looking at this issue is that when the institute of marriage was started the view on gays was very taboo. So who in their right mind would have admitted to being anywhere near being for it? If they knew then what it was going to be like today maybe they would have had a different view on the issue.

I may be way off but it is in my opinion the most logical answer to the situation. I mean if we knew then that being gay was something you were born into then maybe we would have understood it soon enough to allow them to be happy--just like the male/female couple could be. To my knowledge the issue of gays was not understood at the time of the installation of a marriage license.

Please tell me if I am wrong.

[noiretextatique]

7. all i can say is...

american society has matured enough to correct a lot of its formerly evil ways. it used to be illegal for two people of different races to marry, for example. so, yes...it's time for another leap in social evolution.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mulethree]

9. Marriage = ownership and subjugation, ok for a woman not for a man

Well you see, a man can own, as property, a woman and her reproductive capabilities. A man can never own another man, women can be owned and ordered around like cattle, but you can't have a man doing that to another man. Well assuming they are both white men.

So if the woman commits adultry she can be divorced, or if she proves infertile she can be divorced, or if you want more kids and she has gotten to old ... A marriage is to start a family which means offspring, so of course it's only valid between a man and a fertile woman.

Hmm not liking the smell of what I'm writing. The gist is that a marriage is a contract between the man and woman's parents and had nothing to do with love or "partnership" as we know it but mainly some chains to make the man provide for the woman and children as long as she was obedient and "faithful" and provided lots of healthy fieldhands - er children.

So we no longer look at marriage like they used to, it's now between people instead of their parents and it's - usually - regarded as a more equal partnership where the Husband isn't neccessarilly the lord and master and the wife isn't neccessarrily the subbordinate child-producer and raiser. Seems a bit odd to me that homosexuals can reject the old "you must be hetero and have a spouse and make babies even if that makes you unhappy" and yet still long for some official or public recognition of their commitment. But as there are many laws and rules that give priviledges or advantages to "married" people, we can't deny those same privlidges and advantages to anyone just because of some ancient, outdated "institution".

Hmm still not liking it, yet it does have the gist. Not saying you're wrong, please forgive my bad mood.

[NashVegas]

10. I Have a Different View

When the institute of marriage started, sexual preference had nothing to do with it, and passing down property to biological heirs had everything to do with it. (no paternity tests back then)

[foxy]

11. But how would they look on it differently today?

That is what I am asking. Would they include the gay marriage if they had known all of the facts?