Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
I'm guessing that California Democrats don't seem to be the 'party of gay people' after all:
Gay marriage measure doomed by DemocratsLike I've said before - this makes no nevermind to me....meaning I don't give a fig one way or the other. But it's looking like the Dems can't get behind this either.Rejection of gay marriage by the California Assembly in tense votes Wednesday and Thursday was due largely to about a dozen Democrats who declined to vote for an issue pushed by their party leader.
Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, a gay legislator who proposed Assembly Bill 19, described himself as enormously disappointed late Thursday after daylong lobbying fell short.
"At what point are we all considered human beings?" Leno said afterward. "It's frustrating, confounding and exasperating."
Gee....wonder why?
...his significant others can fight over the benefits.
Like vultures standing over
Read more in Gay Marriage Doomed
Yogimus said:
Whoa whoa whoa... social security benefits for unions? No, we would hold no distinction over THAT
Read more in Gay Marriage Doomed
Cait said:
I personally don't give a crap if people are stupid enough to want to marry more than one person.
Read more in Gay Marriage Doomed
Yogimus said:
"It might even lead to complete strangers being able to say what emergency medical procedures are
Read more in Gay Marriage Doomed
scroff said:
Scroff: Too long of a comment
Mikey is great
Scroff: Too long of a comm
Read more in Gay Marriage Doomed
Yogimus said:
If the gov't isn't granting, how can it deny?
Read more in Gay Marriage Doomed
Comments on Gay Marriage Doomed
It would be wonderful if Gay marriage was really doomed in California. But I still think these gays are too loud and obnoxious to be forgotten so easily. Still, its good to see another conservatve online. Come visit our blog sometime www.frustratedphilosophers.blogspot.com thank you and God Bless America
|| Posted by Nicolas Malebranche, June 3, 2005 09:58 AM ||-N Malebranche
you have to revoke the gov't's authority to GRANT these rights.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 3, 2005 07:29 PM ||The government isn't GRANTING anything, the 'government', America, is currently denying equal rights to a certain group of Americans based on who they fall in love with. Sounds pretty friggin stupid to me.
As far as the Dems backing down, that's easy... they're as spineless in California as they are in the Senate.
|| Posted by scroff, June 3, 2005 08:06 PM ||So Scroff, should those "equal rights" be given to a brother and sister who want to marry? How about three people who "love" each other?
.
|| Posted by Director Mitch, June 3, 2005 09:23 PM ||I don't know if I've heard of anyone saying they want to marry their sister or two other people. Well, Neal Horsley said his first girlfriend was a mule, but I don't think that's what this is about. More power to him, I guess. But your questions seem pretty irrelevant to me.
But since you brought up the 'slippery slope' argument, let's apply it to something like gun rights. Second amendment says I have the right to bear arms without defining "arms"... by your logic I suppose we should do away with the second amendment because you never know, someone might want to own a nuclear weapon...
Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it...?
I don't see what all the fuss is about. The only reason anyone has cited that I know of is that god hates fags or something to that effect. Gay marriage harms no one, and in the words of Thomas Jefferson...
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
...nor does it harm me if my neighbor's partner happens to be the same sex. Like it or not, there are gay couples all over the place, living their lives and going about their business and you wouldn't know it unless you knew them personally. They're even raising children, god forbid! All they're asking for is the same rights straight couples have... gay couples are denied over 1000 rights that straight couples have, including, but obviously not limited to...
-The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
-The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
-The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
-The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
-The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
-Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
-The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
-The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.
Ford Motor Company has initiated so called "family-friendly policies" that pledge not to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, and provide equal benefits for all its employees. 80% of the Fortune 500 companies have similar policies because they realize that fair is fair and what's right is right (maybe I should have said what's correct is correct). Along comes the American Family Association with a boycott of Ford for their policies. AFA's stated philosophy is...
The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to man through the Bible, and that all men everywhere at all times are subject to the authority of God's Word. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers.
Never mind our Founding Father's weren't all christians (Jefferson called himself a "Materialist", John Adams, in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, said "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion") nor did they espouse or believe that America should be based on "biblical truth", these folks are against gay marriage simply because it says god hates fags in the bible. While I have read the bible several times and think it's a great book with oodles of wise things to say, as well as oodles of stupid things, I don't believe it's the word of god, nor do I believe it has any place in American government, no more than the Torah or Koran. Neither did our Founding Fathers.
So, to answer your question. No one is asking to marry their sister or have more than one partner. If and when they do, we'll deal with it then. Just like we'll deal with it when the Gun Owners of America start whining for Abrams tanks.
|| Posted by scroff, June 4, 2005 01:16 AM ||Scroff: Too long of a comment.
You must insert between every other paragraph something that honors Mikey.....;)
(Just messing with ya....blather on)
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 4, 2005 02:15 PM ||If the gov't isn't granting, how can it deny?
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 05:30 PM ||Scroff: Too long of a comment
Mikey is great
Scroff: Too long of a comment
Mikey is all um, all uh, all... Mikey!
If the gov't isn't granting, how can it deny
Nice rhetorical device there yogs, and I see your point...
Some folks would say that the right to fall in love and marry is one of those unalienable rights, given by "the creator" rather than man and thus irrevokable by man.
(Mikey rocks!)
Gay couples are being denied the rights granted to straight couples based on their love interests. If you take away the governments power to grant those rights the result would be gay marriage. It would also, most likely, result in partner benefits, where unmarried couples would share the same benefits. It might even lead to complete strangers being able to say what emergency medical procedures are done to you, after all, there would be no laws outlining who would have the responsibility to make sure your needs are met should you become incapacitated, so hell, I could do it. Mikey (mikey is great) and I could sit around and argue about it until you choked on your own vomit while we dickered "live... die live die live die... oops"
I could then take a few weeks off to mourn your passing...
Then again, maybe it's better that there are laws outlining who can do for whom and stuff like that, stuff that gay couples don't get...
(MIkey plays one bitchin bass)
|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 01:10 AM ||"It might even lead to complete strangers being able to say what emergency medical procedures are done to you, after all, there would be no laws outlining who would have the responsibility to make sure your needs are met should you become incapacitated, so hell, I could do it."
No, I would assign you as that person. Let's say that you and me are living together as a couple. We file for marriage, and the state CAN NOT DENY because they have no right to intervene. They can only maintain record of the union. That would be the beginning and the end of their jurisdiction.
Now any married couple shares the legal authority that spouses have over each other.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 5, 2005 07:23 PM ||I personally don't give a crap if people are stupid enough to want to marry more than one person. But I think if they do, that only one of thoses spouses should be eligible for any government assistance, such as social security death benefits. As to the brother and sister thing, there are sound genetic reasons to deny such unions, just as there are sound psychological reasons to deny letting people have sex with minors.
|| Posted by Cait, June 6, 2005 08:08 PM ||Whoa whoa whoa... social security benefits for unions? No, we would hold no distinction over THAT. There would BE no extra benefits.
But that wouldn't fly in the gimmie states, so I guess a reasonable solution would be to have X amount of dollars per person, and when that person dies, his significant others can fight over the benefits.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 6, 2005 10:24 PM ||...his significant others can fight over the benefits.
Like vultures standing over a gazelle....
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 7, 2005 08:09 AM ||