Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[nikki2200 4]

Really? What about Trigger and Mr. Ed?

 

http://www.vh1.com/celebrity/bwe/images/2009/07/My-Friend-Flicka-Roddy-McDowel.jpg

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

What?

 

 

Really? Gheys make up about 1% of the population. They don't like civil unions. They want to change the definition of marriage for all. Civil unions aren't good enough for them. Name another group of people that represent 1% of the population whot are afforded that kind of power or influence? That angers some people.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

 

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

 

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

 

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

[tubby_mcgee 701]

Incest is a crime in most every state

 

 

It's a crime...and to YOU (and me) it is LUDICROUS to think anyone would think it's okay. A long time ago....people thought it was ludicrous (I still do) if a man said he was going to marry another man. Fast forward to 2013. You've got a bunch of "everyone needs to get along" nuts chanting "Ghey is good, ghey is great, let the gheys get married..."

 

Fast forward to 2040 (pick a date), the same liberal folk (progressively will have gotten more liberal, just like they did from 1960 to 2013), will be chanting "Incest is good, Incest is great, let thy sister and thy father marry"

 

There again....a case of everyone believing "what they do" no matter how obscure, should be greeted with open arms, as that is what is being taught.

 

 

I look at gheys as no higher on a the public hierarchy chart than someone marrying their sister, or a pope raping a 9 year old boy. All of them are utterly repulsive. They should be locked up.

[nikki2200 4]

It's a crime...and to YOU (and me) it is LUDICROUS to think anyone would think it's okay. A long time ago....people thought it was ludicrous (I still do) if a man said he was going to marry another man. Fast forward to 2013. You've got a bunch of "everyone needs to get along" nuts chanting "Ghey is good, ghey is great, let the gheys get married..."

 

Fast forward to 2040 (pick a date), the same liberal folk (progressively will have gotten more liberal, just like they did from 1960 to 2013), will be chanting "Incest is good, Incest is great, let thy sister and thy father marry"

 

There again....a case of everyone believing "what they do" no matter how obscure, should be greeted with open arms, as that is what is being taught.

 

 

I look at gheys as no higher on a the public hierarchy chart than someone marrying their sister, or a pope raping a 9 year old boy. All of them are utterly repulsive. They should be locked up.

 

And if anyone would like any evidence whether or not one of the basic reasons that people don't want to allow homosexuals to get married is outright bigotry, please see above post.

 

[gocolts 300]

I am afraid to tell you this, Gary, but many of Jerry Springer's subjects aren't real. I know that you are still reeling from finding out about professional wrestling and Lizard Lick Towing, but I feel that I owe it to you.

You don't say.

 

I already knew that stuff. I figured out that wrestling was fake when I use to go watch it live as child. One night after it was over me and a buddy snuck into the ring and under the ring and figured it all out.

 

Two of the main dudes in my local area were Jerry The King Lawler and Superstar Bill Dundee. Bill Dundee's son told me that Jerry was fake a long time ago. In fact, he was a booker for Jerry Springer and even made a couple of appearances. Thanks for he heads up though.

[Greedo 13]

I'll add to your prediction that Scalia will go to great lengths to prove that Founding Fathers only recognized marriage as that between a man and woman with an interpretation that has no basis in historical documentation...also that 3 times someone will check the pulse of Justice Thomas to see if he's still alive.

 

Sounds about right.

 

I think man and woman.

You think any two adults.

 

I think you're off base.

 

This is the beauty of democratic society. As a group we decide on the norms, and then enforce them. I'm hopeful gay marriage happens, but there have to be enough of me for society to accept it. There are times in history and cultures where incest and multiple wives were accepted. It just comes down to what our society wants.

 

Ever notice the more we push for equality, gheys, welfare, handouts, and for everyone to get along and love one another, the more mass murders and demented focks that are popping up.

 

Everyone thinks they deserve their "due props" and when they don't get it by god the world is gonna have hell to pay.

 

Yes. There's a direct correlation.

 

No, and I see nothing in your post to back up your assertion.

 

we should get that overruled too then..don't you think? why draw the line there?

 

See above - as a society we need to continually ask ourselves where the "line" is. Nothing wrong with that - it's a healthy process.

 

I think what frustrates a lot of people is the fact that 1% of the population is trying to change the definition of marriage. Name another group in this country with that kind of power?

 

1%? I think your estimate is low.

 

But what the hell - I'll say the Senate, SCOTUS, the NRA, just to name a few.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

 

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

 

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

 

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

 

I so love the Onion...thanks for finding this.

 

I look at gheys as no higher on a the public hierarchy chart than someone marrying their sister, or a pope raping a 9 year old boy. All of them are utterly repulsive. They should be locked up.

 

Fortunately for our society, you're in the fringe minority, and policy won't be based on your beliefs.

[penultimatestraw 473]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

 

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

 

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

 

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Exactly how I feel about this "issue".

Really? Gheys make up about 1% of the population. They don't like civil unions. They want to change the definition of marriage for all. Civil unions aren't good enough for them. Name another group of people that represent 1% of the population whot are afforded that kind of power or influence? That angers some people.

Gheys make up far more than 1% of the population, and supporters of same sex marriage exceed 50% in recent polls.

 

Also, is there any more inane argument than the slippery slope? If applied, no decision could ever be made for fear of the most extreme downstream consequences.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

And if anyone would like any evidence whether or not one of the basic reasons that people don't want to allow homosexuals to get married is outright bigotry, please see above post.

 

 

Whoa, careful now. Call someone a bigot and they might go digging into your post history to see if you ever made an off color joke.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

BTW from today's arguments it sounds like the Supreme Court will dodge the issue and find that the appellants didn't have standing to challenge the trial court's decision. That would leave the trial court's ruling in place (that California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional) and wouldn't require the Court to issue a sweeping ruling.

 

Of course, you never know what the ruling will be for sure until it comes out.

[nikki2200 4]

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Cooper, could I just understand your argument. In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite -- opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?

 

MR. COOPER: I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our -- our position, yes.

 

...

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me -- let me give you one -- one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must -- you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's -­

there's considerable disagreement among -- among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not -- do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

 

JUSTICE GINSBURG: California -- no, California does.

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it -- whether it harms or helps the child?

 

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor. And there's -­ there's -­

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: But that's a possible deleterious effect, isn't it?

 

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, it -- it is certainly among the -­

 

JUSTICE GINSBURG: It wouldn't be in California, Mr. Cooper, because that's not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.

 

...

 

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

 

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

 

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

 

(Laughter.)

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple -- I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

 

(Laughter.)

 

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -­

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: Actually, I'm not even -­

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage -- you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?

 

(Laughter.)

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think?

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just asked about age. I didn't ask about anything else. That's not -­ we ask about people's age all the time.

 

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, and even asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. Again -­

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: Strom Thurmond was -- was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.

 

(Laughter.)

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I enjoyed this exchange, where Scalia was made to look like a dumbass:

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm curious, when -­

when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to

exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868,

when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?

 

MR. OLSON: When -- may I answer this in the

form of a rhetorical question? When did it become

unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?

When did it become unconstitutional to assign children

to separate schools.

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's an easy question, I

think, for that one. At -- at the time that the Equal

Protection Clause was adopted. That's absolutely true.

But don't give me a question to my question.

(Laughter.)

[nikki2200 4]

BTW from today's arguments it sounds like the Supreme Court will dodge the issue and find that the appellants didn't have standing to challenge the trial court's decision. That would leave the trial court's ruling in place (that California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional) and wouldn't require the Court to issue a sweeping ruling.

 

Of course, you never know what the ruling will be for sure until it comes out.

 

Why is there a question of standing, with the understanding that I barely know what standing means? This isn't a US Constitutional issue that the SCOTUS would have jurisdiction over?

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Why is there a question of standing, with the understanding that I barely know what standing means? This isn't a US Constitutional issue that the SCOTUS would have jurisdiction over?

 

From what I gather, the State of California did NOT appeal the trial court's ruling. Rather a citizen's group that supported Prop 8 was behind the appeal. The argument now is that the citizen group didn't have standing because the state is the one that was "injured" by having its law declared unconstitutional, not the citizens' group.

 

Lack of "standing" is often used when a Court wants to avoid an issue. Obviously the doctrine is somewhat nebulous. For instance the citizens promoting prop 8 may not have been directly "injured" in a strict sense, but their interests as citizens were injured. Of course, if that was the test than couldn't any citizen challenge almost any action in court, even if it didn't directly pertain to them? What would stop me or you from challenging any law on the books simply because it offends our sensibilities?

[nikki2200 4]

From what I gather, the State of California did NOT appeal the trial court's ruling. Rather a citizen's group that supported Prop 8 was behind the appeal. The argument now is that the citizen group didn't have standing because the state is the one that was "injured" by having its law declared unconstitutional, not the citizens' group.

 

Lack of "standing" is often used when a Court wants to avoid an issue. Obviously the doctrine is somewhat nebulous. For instance the citizens promoting prop 8 may not have been directly "injured" in a strict sense, but their interests as citizens were injured. Of course, if that was the test than couldn't any citizen challenge almost any action in court, even if it didn't directly pertain to them? What would stop me or you from challenging any law on the books simply because it offends our sensibilities?

 

Ah OK. I wasn't aware of that. I thought this was just the natural progression of the suit. I didn't realize a third party came in and filed the appeal.

[Voltaire 5,453]

Since marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, this is something left to the states to decide. So I think things like gay marriage should be decided on a state-by-state basis. It's got some momentum around the country, although surprisingly not in California of all places. I wouldn't want SCOTUS either validating it or banning it across the country. That would just p*ss too many people off.

 

As far as DOMA, which is a federal law, I don't think it's a matter of constitutionality at all so the courts should butt out and let the Congress do their jobs. If it's to be ended, that should come about in the same way it was enacted- passed through Congress and signed into law by the president.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Since marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, this is something left to the states to decide. So I think things like gay marriage should be decided on a state-by-state basis. It's got some momentum around the country, although surprisingly not in California of all places. I wouldn't want SCOTUS either validating it or banning it across the country.

 

As far as DOMA, which is a federal law, I don't think it's a matter of constitutionality at all so the courts should butt out and let the Congress do their jobs. If it's to be ended, that should come about in the same way it was enacted- passed through Congress and signed into law by the president.

 

Except it's not that simple, because the Constitution has a little something called the full faith and credit clause:

 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

 

DOMA says a state doesn't have to recognize a gay marriage granted in another state, which would seem to directly contradict the constitution.

 

And of course there's also the equal protection issue.

[nikki2200 4]

Since marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, this is something left to the states to decide. So I think things like gay marriage should be decided on a state-by-state basis. It's got some momentum around the country, although surprisingly not in California of all places. I wouldn't want SCOTUS either validating it or banning it across the country. That would just p*ss too many people off.

 

As far as DOMA, which is a federal law, I don't think it's a matter of constitutionality at all so the courts should butt out and let the Congress do their jobs. If it's to be ended, that should come about in the same way it was enacted- passed through Congress and signed into law by the president.

 

What about interracial marriage which was illegal in some states until the 1960s? Should that be left up to the states? The SCOTUS didn't seem to think so and ruled that the right to marry was protected under the 14th Amendment.

 

The DOMA case is actually more compelling than the Prop 8 case and has a better chance of being ruled on I would think because there are quantifiable damages being presented in the form of money. In this particular case is a woman who was legally married to another woman in MA, and when her legal wife died, she owed the federal government over $300K in estate taxes because they did not recognize her marriage, even though she was legally married according to MA law. That's a pretty compelling case if you ask me. If the fed says they are going to leave it to the states, but then turns around and says that they will not recognize the marriage at the federal level, there is something wrong with that.

[jerryskids 7,053]

From what I gather, the State of California did NOT appeal the trial court's ruling. Rather a citizen's group that supported Prop 8 was behind the appeal. The argument now is that the citizen group didn't have standing because the state is the one that was "injured" by having its law declared unconstitutional, not the citizens' group.

 

Lack of "standing" is often used when a Court wants to avoid an issue. Obviously the doctrine is somewhat nebulous. For instance the citizens promoting prop 8 may not have been directly "injured" in a strict sense, but their interests as citizens were injured. Of course, if that was the test than couldn't any citizen challenge almost any action in court, even if it didn't directly pertain to them? What would stop me or you from challenging any law on the books simply because it offends our sensibilities?

Why would they accept the case then?

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Why would they accept the case then?

 

That's a good question. Sometimes they will accept a case specifically to decide an issue of standing, to develop the law in that area. But that doesn't seem to have been their intention here. Although it would appear to be a novel legal question--whether the proponents of a citizen initiative have standing to appeal a decision striking down the law that came from the initiative. So who knows for sure. The Supreme Court did ask the parties to brief the standing issue so it's not like they're pulling this out of their butt last minute.

 

It's also possible they accepted the case and then realized that they couldn't decide it without issuing a sweeping decision, which they weren't prepared to do. Perhaps they thought they could decide it on more narrow grounds and then realized it wasn't really feasible.

 

Or maybe they'll find the citizens do have standing and issue a broad decision. We can't know for sure until they release the opinion. People always read a lot into oral argument and often times the Court goes in a much different direction than you might think based off the questioning. IIRC many experts were sure that ObamaCare was totally done for after oral argument in that case.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

If I had to guess right now though, I'd say they strike down DOMA but avoid a broad ruling on gay marriage generally.

[Voltaire 5,453]

Except it's not that simple, because the Constitution has a little something called the full faith and credit clause:

 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

 

DOMA says a state doesn't have to recognize a gay marriage granted in another state, which would seem to directly contradict the constitution.

 

And of course there's also the equal protection issue.

 

You're right about the constitutionality of it should be called into question. Since various parts of the constittion clash, SCOTUS would have to make a determinaton.

 

But hopefully a narrow one.

 

It's pretty messed up that ten states can decide to allow gay marriage and force the other 40 to have to accept it (or that the 40 states can tell the ten what to do). Parts of the country are culturally at odds with other parts of the country and the ones with federal political power shouldn't use that power to inflict their beliefs on the other part.

[CantTouchThis 23]

I think marriage, outside of a religious purpose, SHOULD be meaningless. There should be no legal stipulations recognized by any government. Can't two people just be together without there being a label? So, basically, I'm against marriage in any form.

 

That being said there are a lot of reasons to get married outside of a religious purpose as there are a lot of legal benefits to being together in a union. Obviously most people get married outside of the traditional religious reasons.

 

That being said, the fact that there are people who want to get married but can't because their views are different than traditional thinking is beyond absurd. I think if a guy/gal wants to marry a focking lizard they should be able to. Christ, who gives a fock, it doesn't effect anyone else in the least. Feel uncomfortable watch 2 guys holding hands down the street? Fine, look at the cars passing by or something. It's perfectly legal for someone to let out a nasty fart on an elevator, and that has much more effect on your life than 2 gays getting married.

[nikki2200 4]

I think marriage, outside of a religious purpose, SHOULD be meaningless. There should be no legal stipulations recognized by any government. Can't two people just be together without there being a label? So, basically, I'm against marriage in any form.

 

That being said there are a lot of reasons to get married outside of a religious purpose as there are a lot of legal benefits to being together in a union. Obviously most people get married outside of the traditional religious reasons.

 

That being said, the fact that there are people who want to get married but can't because their views are different than traditional thinking is beyond absurd. I think if a guy/gal wants to marry a focking lizard they should be able to. Christ, who gives a fock, it doesn't effect anyone else in the least. Feel uncomfortable watch 2 guys holding hands down the street? Fine, look at the cars passing by or something. It's perfectly legal for someone to let out a nasty fart on an elevator, and that has much more effect on your life than 2 gays getting married.

 

What exactly do you see wrong with two people making a commitment and a legal contract to live domestically together for the rest of their lives? It's not really about a "label". It's about making a commitment and entering a legally binding obligation to each other to share finances and all other aspects of life. Living together without the "label" causes a whole buttload of issues if the relationship ends. Not that ending a marriage is easy and if a divorce happens there is not a buttload of issues. But when I was young, probably about your age, I lived with a guy for a few years and I had the same sentiments. I don't need a label. That's all old school and I'm a free thinker. When the reality of the situation was I probably knew I didn't want to spend the rest of my life with him so I was justifying it all by acting superior like I didn't need that "label". When you do something of that nature, and you are not married, things are really focking ugly when the relationship ends and after that I swore I would never live with anyone else again unless I was married (which I sorta didn't exactly stick to BUT until the past year I made sure that we each maintained our own separate residences in my relationships even though at times we were pretty much living together). There is absolutely no forum to work things out on who gets what. Joint bank accounts, furniture, historical financial contributions to things. Of course anyone who has been through a divorce will probably lambast me for saying this because I know it's ugly, but I much rather would have gone through that process with a legal contract in place as opposed to the way it went down. Maybe because unlike marriage and divorce scenarios I'm the one that got completely screwed and there was no legal recourse for me to remedy the screwing. And if you want to have children, I think it is critical from a legal perspective to make sure you are married, especially for men.

 

Anyway... I understand about your philosophical "I don't need a label" thing. However, I think as you get older and are more ready to settle down, you will realize that it really is an important "label" to have and when you find the right person you won't think twice about it.

 

And as for your lizard thing..... a lizard can neither express consent nor sign a marriage certificate nor are they considered a person, so that's ridiculous to think that one can "marry" a lizard.

 

That's all.

[penultimatestraw 473]

What exactly do you see wrong with two people making a commitment and a legal contract to live domestically together for the rest of their lives? It's not really about a "label". It's about making a commitment and entering a legally binding obligation to each other to share finances and all other aspects of life. Living together without the "label" causes a whole buttload of issues if the relationship ends. Not that ending a marriage is easy and if a divorce happens there is not a buttload of issues. But when I was young, probably about your age, I lived with a guy for a few years and I had the same sentiments. I don't need a label. That's all old school and I'm a free thinker. When the reality of the situation was I probably knew I didn't want to spend the rest of my life with him so I was justifying it all by acting superior like I didn't need that "label". When you do something of that nature, and you are not married, things are really focking ugly when the relationship ends and after that I swore I would never live with anyone else again unless I was married (which I sorta didn't exactly stick to BUT until the past year I made sure that we each maintained our own separate residences in my relationships even though at times we were pretty much living together). There is absolutely no forum to work things out on who gets what. Joint bank accounts, furniture, historical financial contributions to things. Of course anyone who has been through a divorce will probably lambast me for saying this because I know it's ugly, but I much rather would have gone through that process with a legal contract in place as opposed to the way it went down. Maybe because unlike marriage and divorce scenarios I'm the one that got completely screwed and there was no legal recourse for me to remedy the screwing. And if you want to have children, I think it is critical from a legal perspective to make sure you are married, especially for men.

 

Anyway... I understand about your philosophical "I don't need a label" thing. However, I think as you get older and are more ready to settle down, you will realize that it really is an important "label" to have and when you find the right person you won't think twice about it.

 

And as for your lizard thing..... a lizard can neither express consent nor sign a marriage certificate nor are they considered a person, so that's ridiculous to think that one can "marry" a lizard.

 

That's all.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the post-divorce buttload is larger. Especially for higher wage earners.

[nikki2200 4]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the post-divorce buttload is larger. Especially for higher wage earners.

 

I already said I understand that when you are married and get divorced, there are a buttload of problems. But in my particular situation, where we were both about equal wage earners and we had a joint bank account and he emptied the bank account out which was at least half of my money if not more, and I had no legal recourse whatsoever because it was his bank account too, if that had been a divorce situation, no judge on the planet would have allowed him to do that. I understand that divorce is really focking ugly. I was trying to point out to CTT that if that contract does not exist it can cause a whole lot of problems down the line if you eventually do break up. Not that divorce doesn't have inherent issues and screwing over of people and is really focking nasty. But at least there is a process. So the idealistic "we don't need a label" doesn't really exist because IMO you kinda do. You have been married twice, so obviously you believe a little bit in the importance of applying that "label" to your relationship, no?

[CantTouchThis 23]

What exactly do you see wrong with two people making a commitment and a legal contract to live domestically together for the rest of their lives? It's not really about a "label". It's about making a commitment and entering a legally binding obligation to each other to share finances and all other aspects of life. Living together without the "label" causes a whole buttload of issues if the relationship ends. Not that ending a marriage is easy and if a divorce happens there is not a buttload of issues. But when I was young, probably about your age, I lived with a guy for a few years and I had the same sentiments. I don't need a label. That's all old school and I'm a free thinker. When the reality of the situation was I probably knew I didn't want to spend the rest of my life with him so I was justifying it all by acting superior like I didn't need that "label". When you do something of that nature, and you are not married, things are really focking ugly when the relationship ends and after that I swore I would never live with anyone else again unless I was married (which I sorta didn't exactly stick to BUT until the past year I made sure that we each maintained our own separate residences in my relationships even though at times we were pretty much living together). There is absolutely no forum to work things out on who gets what. Joint bank accounts, furniture, historical financial contributions to things. Of course anyone who has been through a divorce will probably lambast me for saying this because I know it's ugly, but I much rather would have gone through that process with a legal contract in place as opposed to the way it went down. Maybe because unlike marriage and divorce scenarios I'm the one that got completely screwed and there was no legal recourse for me to remedy the screwing. And if you want to have children, I think it is critical from a legal perspective to make sure you are married, especially for men.

 

Anyway... I understand about your philosophical "I don't need a label" thing. However, I think as you get older and are more ready to settle down, you will realize that it really is an important "label" to have and when you find the right person you won't think twice about it.

 

And as for your lizard thing..... a lizard can neither express consent nor sign a marriage certificate nor are they considered a person, so that's ridiculous to think that one can "marry" a lizard.

 

That's all.

 

You take me too literally.

 

My point was that I don't think there should be any legal bearing on marriage. I do realize that there are plenty of benefits to getting married, which is why I am not personally against getting married. In the highly unlikely event of me finding someone I want to be with for the rest of my life, I will get married and settle down and whatnot. It makes sense because it will mean us being legally recognized as a couple and getting a lot of benefits from that.

 

However, I don't think it should be that way. It's hard to explain/fathom because we have all been brought up with the same logic; meet someone you want to marry, then marry them, and live happily ever after. The older I get, the more and more marriage doesn't make sense to me. I think the legal benefits makes people rush in marriage and that's why divorce is so high. If there weren't any real reasons to get married, I think people would take a lot more time and really evaluate their situation. I could type for pages and pages on why marriage, as it is now, is stupid. But I will not.

 

The biggest factor in this whole thing is kids. This is where things get messy. It is almost a proven fact that 2 parents sticking together(unless one of them is truly abusive, in which case this becomes a whole different problem entirely) throughout a child's childhood/adolescence is better for them in the long run, even if the marriage has fallen apart. For example, my parents stayed together until I(the youngest of 4 kids) was well into college, despite the fact that neither really wanted to be together for many years before the divorce.

 

However, I think marriage actually muddies this more through the agonizing process of divorce. Whereas, if 2 non-married people have a kid, and want to separate, they just separate, and still get the whole child support/visitation mess that divorcees go through.

 

Crazy thought: If you have a kid with someone, you have to live together, or at least within like a half mile from each other so the kid can be around both parents regularly without messy visitation stuff. If you have a kid with another person, you automatically get your tubes tied/vasectomy. If you can't tell, I absolutely despise parents who rush into having a child and then end up splitting up, leaving the kid's life in shambles. I was lucky enough to have 2 great parents that didn't do this, but I've seen it happen enough to know that this should not ever happen.

 

BUTTTT, on the subject. I think since it's not in the constitution, it should be left up to the states. DOMA should be revoked. Gays should be able to get married and adopt China babies. Most Gay people wouldn't get married anyways, only the ones that truly want to get married and be a family, which is why I think gays would make better families than most straight marriages.

 

Oh, 1% is a GROSS underestimation. Upon research, I see some "experts" estimate the gay population at around 2%, and bi or gay(Lets just say Bi's are gay) at around 4%. I don't live in a particular gay area, but I would estimate the gay population in my area in the 10-15% range. I think a lot of people who are gay won't admit it or say they're bi. That's why polls on this subject aren't a great indicator. I would say, across America, 10% is very conservative estimate. That would mean there are just about as many gays as blacks. Plus sexual preference transcends race and religion.

[nikki2200 4]

You take me too literally.

 

My point was that I don't think there should be any legal bearing on marriage. I do realize that there are plenty of benefits to getting married, which is why I am not personally against getting married. In the highly unlikely event of me finding someone I want to be with for the rest of my life, I will get married and settle down and whatnot. It makes sense because it will mean us being legally recognized as a couple and getting a lot of benefits from that.

 

However, I don't think it should be that way. It's hard to explain/fathom because we have all been brought up with the same logic; meet someone you want to marry, then marry them, and live happily ever after. The older I get, the more and more marriage doesn't make sense to me. I think the legal benefits makes people rush in marriage and that's why divorce is so high. If there weren't any real reasons to get married, I think people would take a lot more time and really evaluate their situation. I could type for pages and pages on why marriage, as it is now, is stupid. But I will not.

 

The biggest factor in this whole thing is kids. This is where things get messy. It is almost a proven fact that 2 parents sticking together(unless one of them is truly abusive, in which case this becomes a whole different problem entirely) throughout a child's childhood/adolescence is better for them in the long run, even if the marriage has fallen apart. For example, my parents stayed together until I(the youngest of 4 kids) was well into college, despite the fact that neither really wanted to be together for many years before the divorce.

 

However, I think marriage actually muddies this more through the agonizing process of divorce. Whereas, if 2 non-married people have a kid, and want to separate, they just separate, and still get the whole child support/visitation mess that divorcees go through.

 

Crazy thought: If you have a kid with someone, you have to live together, or at least within like a half mile from each other so the kid can be around both parents regularly without messy visitation stuff. If you have a kid with another person, you automatically get your tubes tied/vasectomy. If you can't tell, I absolutely despise parents who rush into having a child and then end up splitting up, leaving the kid's life in shambles. I was lucky enough to have 2 great parents that didn't do this, but I've seen it happen enough to know that this should not ever happen.

 

OK. I think I was assuming you felt the way I did when I was in my 20s and thought that pretending to be married, and behaving like you are married, but not actually getting married was a good thing and I was just saying that opens up a whole world of focked-upness if the relationship ends. I'm obviously not one that has rushed into marriage as I am in the worse half of my 30s and am now getting married for the first time. I understand your point about societal pressures and people getting married because that's what they think they need to do and they rush into it. I was just warning against the philosophy I had when I was younger and thought I knew everything and decided I didn't need a "label" but wanted to behave and interact in the relationship like I was married. It's a bad idea.

 

BUTTTT, on the subject. I think since it's not in the constitution, it should be left up to the states. DOMA should be revoked. Gays should be able to get married and adopt China babies. Most Gay people wouldn't get married anyways, only the ones that truly want to get married and be a family, which is why I think gays would make better families than most straight marriages.

 

Oh, 1% is a GROSS underestimation. Upon research, I see some "experts" estimate the gay population at around 2%, and bi or gay(Lets just say Bi's are gay) at around 4%. I don't live in a particular gay area, but I would estimate the gay population in my area in the 10-15% range. I think a lot of people who are gay won't admit it or say they're bi. That's why polls on this subject aren't a great indicator. I would say, across America, 10% is very conservative estimate. That would mean there are just about as many gays as blacks. Plus sexual preference transcends race and religion.

 

The 1% is a ridiculous under-estimation. The most recent of studies estimate 4% openly admitting to being gay with up to 12% admitting to being at least a little attracted to members of the same sex. I think these polls are hard to validate the accuracy of because so many people are so far in the closet that they can't even admit in an anonymous poll that they may be gay. So we are totally on the same page and was the reason for my original "What?" to BB but I didn't have the energy to get into it at that moment.

 

I didn't mean to be condescending or anything, I was just trying to warn you against making the same mistakes I did when I was in my 20s and idealistic and all against the "label" of being married. Maybe for men who earn more than their partners this could be a good thing, so I may be a bit skewed in my beliefs on that front. I just felt after that, and learning from my stupidity when I was young and idealistic, that I was not going to enter a financial arrangement like that again unless I was 100% positive that it was real and we were both going to do everything possible to make sure that we were going to try to adhere to the "until death do us part" aspect of the arrangement.

[Voltaire 5,453]

You take me too literally.

 

My point was that I don't think there should be any legal bearing on marriage. I do realize that there are plenty of benefits to getting married, which is why I am not personally against getting married. In the highly unlikely event of me finding someone I want to be with for the rest of my life, I will get married and settle down and whatnot. It makes sense because it will mean us being legally recognized as a couple and getting a lot of benefits from that.

 

However, I don't think it should be that way. It's hard to explain/fathom because we have all been brought up with the same logic; meet someone you want to marry, then marry them, and live happily ever after. The older I get, the more and more marriage doesn't make sense to me. I think the legal benefits makes people rush in marriage and that's why divorce is so high. If there weren't any real reasons to get married, I think people would take a lot more time and really evaluate their situation. I could type for pages and pages on why marriage, as it is now, is stupid. But I will not.

 

The biggest factor in this whole thing is kids. This is where things get messy. It is almost a proven fact that 2 parents sticking together(unless one of them is truly abusive, in which case this becomes a whole different problem entirely) throughout a child's childhood/adolescence is better for them in the long run, even if the marriage has fallen apart. For example, my parents stayed together until I(the youngest of 4 kids) was well into college, despite the fact that neither really wanted to be together for many years before the divorce.

 

However, I think marriage actually muddies this more through the agonizing process of divorce. Whereas, if 2 non-married people have a kid, and want to separate, they just separate, and still get the whole child support/visitation mess that divorcees go through.

 

Crazy thought: If you have a kid with someone, you have to live together, or at least within like a half mile from each other so the kid can be around both parents regularly without messy visitation stuff. If you have a kid with another person, you automatically get your tubes tied/vasectomy. If you can't tell, I absolutely despise parents who rush into having a child and then end up splitting up, leaving the kid's life in shambles. I was lucky enough to have 2 great parents that didn't do this, but I've seen it happen enough to know that this should not ever happen.

 

BUTTTT, on the subject. I think since it's not in the constitution, it should be left up to the states. DOMA should be revoked. Gays should be able to get married and adopt China babies. Most Gay people wouldn't get married anyways, only the ones that truly want to get married and be a family, which is why I think gays would make better families than most straight marriages.

 

Oh, 1% is a GROSS underestimation. Upon research, I see some "experts" estimate the gay population at around 2%, and bi or gay(Lets just say Bi's are gay) at around 4%. I don't live in a particular gay area, but I would estimate the gay population in my area in the 10-15% range. I think a lot of people who are gay won't admit it or say they're bi. That's why polls on this subject aren't a great indicator. I would say, across America, 10% is very conservative estimate. That would mean there are just about as many gays as blacks. Plus sexual preference transcends race and religion.

 

You live in metro-Detroit, which by my estimate is <1% gay and closer to 0%. Now I haven't been there s a while, but I can't imagine things changed that quickly. Also, China bans gay adoption so homosexuals would have to find a more gay-friendly country.

[nikki2200 4]

You live in metro-Detroit, which by my estimate is <1% gay and closer to 0%. Now I haven't been there s a while, but I can't imagine things changed that quickly. Also, China bans gay adoption so homosexuals would have to find a more gay-friendly country.

 

Volty, there is nowhere in the world that you could go that is < 1% gay and if that is your perception it just means the gays in your particular area hide it really well.

[drobeski 3,061]

Whoa, careful now. Call someone a bigot and they might go digging into your post history to see if you ever made an off color joke.

You've made plenty of racist amd homophobe comments on here, you're just a fake give a fock hypocrite.

[Voltaire 5,453]

Volty, there is nowhere in the world that you could go that is < 1% gay and if that is your perception it just means the gays in your particular area hide it really well.

There were no gays around when I grew up. I have no family, no friends, let alone know of anybody from my school that turned out gay. Not a single person came out of the closet.

 

Then in the Army was also 0% gay. Granted, this was before 'don't ask don't tell'.

 

In college there were some gay people and there was a gay club but I didn't hang out or make friends with them. Didn't really say anything, just two ships passing in the night.

 

As an adult in Detroit, there was one guy at my gym who set off my gaydar by inviting me to touch his arm. There's also a very extremely high probability that my boss in the Lincoln School district was gay because he talked with the gay sound and had what I would consider uber-ninny, limp-wristed attitudes about how to handle issues that come up in dealing with the kids.

 

In China, people like to walk up to you and practice their English. I had an old guy do this, a horticulture professor. I got a creepy vibe from him. Our conversation ended when he pulled down my neck and kissed me on the nose. I pushed him away and got the fock out of there. Whenever I saw him around after, I avoided him. I realize I handled it wrong, so I vowed that if somebody sexually assaults me, I'll punch them in the face next time.

 

As for my own personal opinion of gay rights, they've evolved over time. It use to be "hell no." Now it's more "rats' ass." I don't want to inflict my beliefs on other people or tell somebody how to live their lives. Out of respect I won't insult people, but I won't go out of my way to help them either. Not that I ever encounter any. I also avoid movies with gay themes or ones that are known to or that I suspect have gay displays of affection. Except lesbian pron that is, I'm a huge fan.

[nikki2200 4]

There were no gays around when I grew up. I have no family, no friends, let alone know of anybody from my school that turned out gay. Not a single person came out of the closet.

 

Then in the Army was also 0% gay. Granted, this was before 'don't ask don't tell'.

 

In college there were some gay people and there was a gay club but I didn't hang out or make friends with them. Didn't really say anything, just two ships passing in the night.

 

As an adult in Detroit, there was one guy at my gym who set off my gaydar by inviting me to touch his arm. There's also a very extremely high probability that my boss in the Lincoln School district was gay because he talked with the gay sound and had what I would consider uber-ninny, limp-wristed attitudes about how to handle issues that come up in dealing with the kids.

 

In China, people like to walk up to you and practice their English. I had an old guy do this, a horticulture professor. I got a creepy vibe from him. Our conversation ended when he pulled down my neck and kissed me on the nose. I pushed him away and got the fock out of there. Whenever I saw him around after, I avoided him. I realize I handled it wrong, so I vowed that if somebody sexually assaults me, I'll punch them in the face next time.

 

As for my own personal opinion of gay rights, they've evolved over time. It use to be "hell no." Now it's more "rats' ass." I don't want to inflict my beliefs on other people or tell somebody how to live their lives. Out of respect I won't insult people, but I won't go out of my way to help them either. Not that I ever encounter any. I also avoid movies with gay themes or ones that are known to or that I suspect have gay displays of affection. Except lesbian pron that is, I'm a huge fan.

 

There is so much wrong with this. Just because you didn't see flaming homos wearing boas and proclaiming their love for Abba all around you does not mean that there were no gays when/where you grew up. Just because you don't know anyone who "turned out gay" from your school or anyone came out of the closet does not mean that you have never met a gay person. Just because no one in Detroit ever licked your face does not mean that there were not multiple gay guys living on your block. I'm going to go with the higher end of the estimate and assume that 10% of all people are gay. That probably means at some point in your life you have encountered someone who was gay and had no idea, because they didn't lick your face or something.

 

Because of a long history of discrimination, which is hard to even quantify because up until the past 40 or so years it wasn't even acknowledged that there was such a thing as gay people, gay people do everything in their power to hide the fact that they are gay from everyone around them. Just because you don't know anyone who is openly gay, does not mean you have never known a gay person in your life. You've also been in China for a long time and as our US society becomes more open to accepting people that are gay, I'm quite certain you would have a few shockers. My gaydar is pretty damn good, and even my jaw has hit the floor a couple of times when someone came out (including my father).

[Voltaire 5,453]

There is so much wrong with this. Just because you didn't see flaming homos wearing boas and proclaiming their love for Abba all around you does not mean that there were no gays when/where you grew up. Just because you don't know anyone who "turned out gay" from your school or anyone came out of the closet does not mean that you have never met a gay person. Just because no one in Detroit ever licked your face does not mean that there were not multiple gay guys living on your block. I'm going to go with the higher end of the estimate and assume that 10% of all people are gay. That probably means at some point in your life you have encountered someone who was gay and had no idea, because they didn't lick your face or something.

 

Because of a long history of discrimination, which is hard to even quantify because up until the past 40 or so years it wasn't even acknowledged that there was such a thing as gay people, gay people do everything in their power to hide the fact that they are gay from everyone around them. Just because you don't know anyone who is openly gay, does not mean you have never known a gay person in your life. You've also been in China for a long time and as our US society becomes more open to accepting people that are gay, I'm quite certain you would have a few shockers. My gaydar is pretty damn good, and even my jaw has hit the floor a couple of times when someone came out (including my father).

 

Oh, in reflection there probably were but they were able to fit right in without making waves. They probably deserve praise for keeping quiet and not creeping everybody out. Like Anderson Cooper- he didn't hide it, he didn't deny it. What he did is he didn't initiate a conversation about it. He wants to be a 'journalist,' not a 'gay journalist.' Just act normal, then at night go home and do what you want.

 

I think what it comes down to is that I treat everybody as equals. I don't feel right telling other people how to live their lives and that trumps my discomfort. I've no interest in insulting anyone or say anything mean. Just be friendly, treat them normally but maybe away a bit at arm's length. No different than I do with Christian fundies.

[phillybear 366]

Volty, there is nowhere in the world that you could go that is < 1% gay and if that is your perception it just means the gays in your particular area hide it really well.

 

I'm pretty sure that in Muslim countries where queebs are stoned to death, the number is zero. I can't imagine too many folks deciding to be gay and dead. And since there are a couple billion Muslims, there is an excellent chance in those countries you won't find a dozen queebs. Nobody is hiding. They just don't believe in this lifestyle.

 

Estimates that claim more than 2.5% in the world are highly amusing.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I already said I understand that when you are married and get divorced, there are a buttload of problems. But in my particular situation, where we were both about equal wage earners and we had a joint bank account and he emptied the bank account out which was at least half of my money if not more, and I had no legal recourse whatsoever because it was his bank account too, if that had been a divorce situation, no judge on the planet would have allowed him to do that. I understand that divorce is really focking ugly. I was trying to point out to CTT that if that contract does not exist it can cause a whole lot of problems down the line if you eventually do break up. Not that divorce doesn't have inherent issues and screwing over of people and is really focking nasty. But at least there is a process. So the idealistic "we don't need a label" doesn't really exist because IMO you kinda do. You have been married twice, so obviously you believe a little bit in the importance of applying that "label" to your relationship, no?

I think the construct of marriage is artificial and unnecessary, but it is important to my wife. I bet the value of marriage is heavily gender-skewed, with most guys agreeing with me.

 

To be fair, my divorce was easier than your break-up from the sound of things. No lawyer, and the only disagreement revolved around reimbursing me for a portion of her car's value (I paid for most of it), which she did. But both of my wives earned more money than I, and we had no kids. None of my divorced friends got off so easily, and I know a lot of long term cohabiters who have split relatively effortlessly (including me on all but one occasion - don't date lawyers).

[wiffleball 4,797]

Really? Gheys make up about 1% of the population. They don't like civil unions. They want to change the definition of marriage for all. Civil unions aren't good enough for them. Name another group of people that represent 1% of the population whot are afforded that kind of power or influence? That angers some people.

 

While both numbers may vary a few points depending upon your source, I've drawn this analogy before:

 

The answer to your question is "Jews".

 

And, if you do any research whatsoever, the IACPA (or whatever) is one of THE most powerful lobbying organizations in the country with HUGE influence over our foreign policy. And, they even brag that "if anybody opposes us, we just call them 'anti-Semitic'.

 

Insert: "Homophobic" and you're looking at roughly the same thing - except on domestic rather than foreign policy.

 

Which is why AIDS gets far more money than Cancer - even though the number of afflicted is retardedly out of proportion to the funding / attention.

 

Which is to say that I agree with you on the principle that no incredibly minor group should have such vast sway in setting public policy.

 

However, I think Gheys should be afforded the same marriage rights as normal people. And I think Israel definitely needs a strong ally in that region as a bullwark against radical Islam.

 

So, I agree with your principle, but I don't disagree with the specific policies espoused by either group in this case.

[Voltaire 5,453]

I'm pretty sure that in Muslim countries where queebs are stoned to death, the number is zero. I can't imagine too many folks deciding to be gay and dead. And since there are a couple billion Muslims, there is an excellent chance in those countries you won't find a dozen queebs. Nobody is hiding. They just don't believe in this lifestyle.

 

Estimates that claim more than 2.5% in the world are highly amusing.

You're completly wrong. In Saudi, the gay rate is close to 100% for reasons similar to the Catholic priesthood is. They can't touch the women so they diddle the nephews. It's the prison mentality there though, only the catcher is gay. You only get stoned to death if you have four witnesses which never happens because the whole country is Jerry Sanduskiland.

 

The Muslim world drives the number of gays through the roof, 99% of the 2.5% live here. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

[penultimatestraw 473]

There is so much wrong with this. Just because you didn't see flaming homos wearing boas and proclaiming their love for Abba all around you does not mean that there were no gays when/where you grew up. Just because you don't know anyone who "turned out gay" from your school or anyone came out of the closet does not mean that you have never met a gay person. Just because no one in Detroit ever licked your face does not mean that there were not multiple gay guys living on your block. I'm going to go with the higher end of the estimate and assume that 10% of all people are gay. That probably means at some point in your life you have encountered someone who was gay and had no idea, because they didn't lick your face or something.

 

Because of a long history of discrimination, which is hard to even quantify because up until the past 40 or so years it wasn't even acknowledged that there was such a thing as gay people, gay people do everything in their power to hide the fact that they are gay from everyone around them. Just because you don't know anyone who is openly gay, does not mean you have never known a gay person in your life. You've also been in China for a long time and as our US society becomes more open to accepting people that are gay, I'm quite certain you would have a few shockers. My gaydar is pretty damn good, and even my jaw has hit the floor a couple of times when someone came out (including my father).

There is an entire underground gay subculture that enables people to stay closeted indefinitely - I ran an STD clinic so I learned a lot about it. Pretty amazing and sad at the same time.

 

Can't believe Voltaire thinks he can identify every gay dude who's ever crossed his path.

[wiffleball 4,797]

I'm pretty sure that in Muslim countries where queebs are stoned to death, the number is zero. I can't imagine too many folks deciding to be gay and dead. And since there are a couple billion Muslims, there is an excellent chance in those countries you won't find a dozen queebs. Nobody is hiding. They just don't believe in this lifestyle.

 

Estimates that claim more than 2.5% in the world are highly amusing.

 

 

Actually, if you look into it, or talk to people who've served in Mooslim countries, they may be gheyer than the entire Castro District combined. - Yet they don't admit it.

 

There's an expression in places like Saud and Afghan that "Women are for babies, Boys are for fun."

 

And here on this bored was a story posted about how a bunch of the Turdiban and other EC's were being treated by our medics for butt sniffles - syphillus. (sp?) or something like that.

 

There's only one way to get that - Yet, these guys repeatedly denied that they were ghey. = And I think firmly believed it too.