Cheney On CNN -- Equal Rights -- Equal Marriage

[weee]

So, which is it--are you with the President and some in Congress, who want marriage to be a federal issue, or are you with Cheney and the gay lobby who wants it to be a state issue.

It shouldn't be left up to anyone to decide whether or not I should be able marry the person I love besides me and the other person. There should be no voting on it, it should just be. You, or any other heterosexual NEVER AT ANY TIME had to fight to marry the person you loved.

 

[radiofriend1]

i find it ironic that the cheneys enlist their daughters to help them campaign but when they're asked about it they get defensive (always followed by the faux right wing media outrage about "why do u drag their daughter into the discussion?"). can't have it both ways, boys & girls

real hypocritical

 

[Johnny Morgan]

It shouldn't be left up to anyone to decide whether or not I should be able marry the person I love besides me and the other person. There should be no voting on it, it should just be. You, or any other heterosexual NEVER AT ANY TIME had to fight to marry the person you loved.

Fine. Then take the state out of it--don't have any recognized marriages, and don't get any benefits on account of your marriage.

That's the easiest and simplest way to acede to what you want. If the state gets out of it, then NO ONE has any interest in the act.

But if that happened, the whole reason you're arguing for recognition would be defeated.

As long as marriage is a state-sanctioned event, there will be "people" telling you who you can and cannot marry--be it homosexuals, your sister/brother, a lunatic or mentally impaired person, or more than one person.

It's up to you--give up your spousal benefits coming from state recognition, or forever make this issue non-political (which means religious, if anything--and then you have people telling you who you can and cannot marry).

Please decide your position.

 

[rkchgo]

It shouldn't be left up to anyone to decide whether or not I should be able marry the person I love besides me and the other person. There should be no voting on it, it should just be. You, or any other heterosexual NEVER AT ANY TIME had to fight to marry the person you loved.

Fine. Then take the state out of it--don't have any recognized marriages, and don't get any benefits on account of your marriage.

That's the easiest and simplest way to acede to what you want. If the state gets out of it, then NO ONE has any interest in the act.

But if that happened, the whole reason you're arguing for recognition would be defeated.

As long as marriage is a state-sanctioned event, there will be "people" telling you who you can and cannot marry--be it homosexuals, your sister/brother, a lunatic or mentally impaired person, or more than one person.

It's up to you--give up your spousal benefits coming from state recognition, or forever make this issue non-political (which means religious, if anything--and then you have people telling you who you can and cannot marry).

Please decide your position.

Wait, there's no federal tax benefit to being married?

 

[weee]

Let me say this again....(oh gawd, we are re-living you constantly stating I and Joe V said that Kerry was President) I want the EXACT SAME THING THAT YOU GET AUTOMATICALLY. THE SAME THING. HEAR THAT? THE SAME THING. MEANING. YOU GO ON A DATE WITH SOMEONE, YOU FALL IN LOVE, YOU DECIDE TO GET MARRIED....YOU HAVE NO PROBLEMS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK VOTERS IF YOU CAN GET MARRIED, YOU CAN JUST DO IT.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Yes, I don't have to ask voters. Now. (I do, however, have to get a marriage license, and in some states, take a blood test.)

Many years ago, I would have had to ask voters (or representatives) to approve state recognition of marriage (or ask a judge to assume it, in common law England--which is what was transported here).

State recognition of marriage IS NOT a requirement. If you want someone not to tell you who you can and cannot marry, then (a) get rid of state-recognized marriage, or (b) get rid of family (who tells someone more who to marry than mom?), or (c) get rid of the church.

As long as we have marriage laws, you will always have someone telling you who you can and cannot marry.

And, going down the slope...if states cannot say that homosexuals cannot marry, what basis is there for laws preventing brother and sister from being married? It can't be the "ewww" factor--that's not stable enough to support a ban on gay marriage, is it? Then what problem is there in permitting incest?

These are all answers that come from your statement that no one should decide who you marry.

 

[weee]

Yes, I don't have to ask voters. Now. (I do, however, have to get a marriage license, and in some states, take a blood test.)

And that's all gay people want. To do the same thing.

Many years ago, I would have had to ask voters (or representatives) to approve state recognition of marriage (or ask a judge to assume it, in common law England--which is what was transported here).

Yes, it that was determined unnecessary, wasn't it.

[NOTE-some posts have been split from this topic and sent to Take It Outside. See Redirection Topic: Cheney ON CNN -- Equal Rights -- Equal Marriage -TIO .]

 

[AKLes]

Seriously...with no malicious intent....

Have you considered eloping to Massachusetts or some other state where the perceived problem does not exist? No, I can't name a bunch but a websearch might be helpful.

I understand the politics of the situation but to let politics stand in the way of love.....?

The battle can certainly be continued after the primary goal (marriage) is accomplished.

 

[rkchgo]

Seriously...with no malicious intent....

Have you considered eloping to Massachusetts or some other state where the perceived problem does not exist? No, I can't name a bunch but a websearch might be helpful.

I understand the politics of the situation but to let politics stand in the way of love.....?

The battle can certainly be continued after the primary goal (marriage) is accomplished.

Les, I live in Arizona. I have a business in Arizona. My ties are in Arizona. Eloping to Massachusetts won't help me any, and if I wanted to live somewhere cold and snowy, I would've stayed in Chicago...

But seriously, and with no malice in return, thanks for trying to come up with a solution.

 

[AKLes]

.....I live in Arizona. I have a business in Arizona. My ties are in Arizona. Eloping to Massachusetts won't help me any, and if I wanted to live somewhere cold and snowy, I would've stayed in Chicago...

But seriously, and with no malice in return, thanks for trying to come up with a solution.

My intent was not to suggest permanent residence in another state; just going there to accomplish the primary goal then returning. Yes, the legal benefits of a conventional marriage would be mooted. On the other hand, the emotional needs would be met. As to the legal stuff, much of it can be dealt with by separate legal actions, wills, powers of attorney, advance directives. Agreed, not all, but more than might at first appear possible.

I'm with you on this because I have some very close friends who have gone through the same thing. Their employment was more flexible and they chose to move completely to a more hospitable state. One of the partners, particularly, has advanced in his chosen field at an incredibly fast rate and they are far better off both emotionally and economically than they ever might have been where they were.

I sincerely wish you well!

And this from what some would have you believe is a crypto-neocon!


.

 

[rkchgo]

I sincerely wish you well!

And this from what some would have you believe is a crypto-neocon!


.

Nah, I don't believe for a minute you're ready for the crypt! :>

 

[AKLes]

Nah, I don't believe for a minute you're ready for the crypt! :>

I long since came to terms with the crypt, having narrowly escaped it a couple of times. In fact, the greater question is now whether the crypt is ready for me!


.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Yes, it that was determined unnecessary, wasn't it.

No--it was made into statutory law. Adopted by the legislature (or adopted by common law, as it existed in England, and made part of common law here, modified by statute).

It was never "unnecessary"--it was adopted after the polity decided it should be.

What gets me is why you feel that the homosexual lobby should bypass this. Is it because your (meaning the lobby's) views on gay marriage have not been successful in the political arena? If so, shouldn't you try harder politically, instead of doing the end around and forcing through the societal back door (excuse the pun) by judicial edict?

That what I don't get. Homosexuals have lost in the popular political cilture in most places, so instead of persuasion, they want to change the rules. I don't understand why that is acceptable. Please explain it to me.

 

[weee]

No, I'm done explaining it. I should have the exact same thing as you do. Topic over.

Les, I do live in Mass. and luckily I can get married. But it frustrates me that everyone can't. I just do not understand it. So many right wing nuts are so consumed about telling other people what they should and shouldn't do, while they cheat on their own spouses, and smoke crystal meth all while preaching how they know what is good for everyone in the world.

And as far as I know, Massachusetts residents are the ones eligible to get married here. So, unless rk had a Massachusetts residence, he couldn't get married here. And that stinks.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I should have the exact same thing as you do.

That's fine. Convince the polity, the voters, the representatives to change the law(s). That's what we do in America--convince the majority that this is important, as important as heterosexual marriage.

I don't see why that is so difficult a process. Is it that your side is a fraid of losing? Or is it that your side is too lazy to fight for popular acceptance, and instead would rather it be done by judicial force?

Whichever it is, just be honest about it.

 

[rkchgo]

I should have the exact same thing as you do.

That's fine. Convince the polity, the voters, the representatives to change the law(s). That's what we do in America--convince the majority that this is important, as important as heterosexual marriage.

I don't see why that is so difficult a process. Is it that your side is a fraid of losing? Or is it that your side is too lazy to fight for popular acceptance, and instead would rather it be done by judicial force?

Whichever it is, just be honest about it.

To be honest...I don't care how it gets done, and will use whatever non-violent means are necessary to get it done. It's that simple. It should be in place. It's not. How it gets put into place isn't as important as that it gets put into place.

And JM, you never answered a prior post of mine...you said it was a states issue, the federal government had nothing to do with it (I'm siginificantly paraphrasing)...so, tell me about that "Married" status on my tax return again?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

the federal government had nothing to do with it (I'm siginificantly paraphrasing)...so, tell me about that "Married" status on my tax return again?

It's not me saying that. I was paraphrasing the argument, proffered by the gay lobby when DOMA and, particularly, the Federal Marriage Amendment were proposed and debated--that it was a states' rights issue, and not one for the federal government.

To be hypertechnical, the marriage status for taxes isn't a federal policy on marriage recognition, per se. You can file separately...and face the burden of higher taxes.

To be honest, there's nothing stopping the federal government from extending "marriage status" benefits to domiciled partners, nothing except sheer politics.

 

[rkchgo]

the federal government had nothing to do with it (I'm siginificantly paraphrasing)...so, tell me about that "Married" status on my tax return again?

It's not me saying that. I was paraphrasing the argument, proffered by the gay lobby when DOMA and, particularly, the Federal Marriage Amendment were proposed and debated--that it was a states' rights issue, and not one for the federal government.

To be hypertechnical, the marriage status for taxes isn't a federal policy on marriage recognition, per se. You can file separately...and face the burden of higher taxes.

Right, non-dscriminatory in any way! You, of course, being (I presume) a married man, can file jointly, and pay less taxes than filing separately. I, as a non-marriable man (I know, but this isn't English class!) don't have that option. Voila! Instant discrimination!

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Not married. Engaged, though.

But the remedy for that is to convince the political branches to extend the benefits of married tax status to domestic partners.

Again, in the political arena.

Also, I should be clear--if I wasn't before--that the appropriate place for these discussions *IS* at the state level. I am unsure of the constitutional status of DOMA and was/am/will always be vehemently opposed to a federal constitutional amendment having anything to do with gay marriage, or any marriage.

 

[rkchgo]

Not married. Engaged, though.

In what? <duck>

But the remedy for that is to convince the political branches to extend the benefits of married tax status to domestic partners.

Again, in the political arena.

In whatever arena it takes.

Also, I should be clear--if I wasn't before--that the appropriate place for these discussions *IS* at the state level. I am unsure of the constitutional status of DOMA and was/am/will always be vehemently opposed to a federal constitutional amendment having anything to do with gay marriage, or any marriage.

I think I already knew that, but thanks for clarifying. :>