Massachusetts

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.

I said "from my perspective". I'm religious. The gay marriage thing isn't good from that perspective.

[stiehl]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that two consenting adults may be able to have the same rights and priveleges in the government's eyes as two other consenting adults.

American citizens being treated equally, what a novel concept

[Ripsnort]

Has anyone studied the financial cascade that would follow if indeed gay marriages would be considered legal? I would imagine alot of male spouses would then be eligible for spousal benefits, medical, medicare, social security, dental.  I'm curious as to what financial effect that would have on business.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Martlet
they already do.

Well ****, what's this whole debate about then?  If gays are allowed to own joint property, file tax returns together, and legally commit to a relationship in the eyes of the state, what is everyone whining about?

Originally posted by Kieran
I said "from my perspective". I'm religious. The gay marriage thing isn't good from that perspective.

Fair enough.  But why is it necessary to coerce your definition of good on others?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Well ****, what's this whole debate about then?  If gays are allowed to own joint property, file tax returns together, and legally commit to a relationship in the eyes of the state, what is everyone whining about?

 

Fair enough.  But why is it necessary to coerce your definition of good on others?

They're "whining" about legislating from the bench.  Are you having trouble following along?

[Tarmac]

Not at all.  I felt that I addressed that issue in my first few posts in this thread.  

If the means are unconstitutional, then I oppose the action.  I'm more interested in those that hold different views about the ends.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Not at all.  I felt that I addressed that issue in my first few posts in this thread.  

If the means are unconstitutional, then I oppose the action.  I'm more interested in those that hold different views about the ends.

Ah.  I don't really care about the "ends" on this particular subject.  In fact, I wish they'd make heterosexual marriage illegal.  That would really take the pressure off me.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Martlet
Ah.  I don't really care about the "ends" on this particular subject.  In fact, I wish they'd make heterosexual marriage illegal.  That would really take the pressure off me.

Good luck with that one.  

[Kieran]

Fair enough. But why is it necessary to coerce your definition of good on others?

As far as I can tell, I am not coercing anyone to do anything. I have a view on a topic, it's an issue about American social life. As such, it should be debated, then voted upon in an assembly before a law either way is passed upon it. IF that vote goes against me, I live with it, albeit unhappily. If I win, others will be unhappy. That's democracy.

What's happening in Massachusetts is not democracy.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Kieran
As far as I can tell, I am not coercing anyone to do anything.

You are not directly coercing them, but democratic coercion is still coercion.  Voting for, or asking your representative to vote for, a ban on gay marriage is asking the government to coerce in your name.  

That's why we have constitutional protections, and judicial oversight (although I agree to a large extent on your objection to judicial lawmaking) - because what the majority wants is not necessarily what's right.

[Kieran]

We disagree on the issue of gay marriage, little doubt. That's cool. Given the opportunity I'll vote against it every time. You can vote for it. I'll live with the results either way, so will you. Nothing to fight about on that score.

I can't wait for a genetic link to pedophilia to be found...  (jerks line, makes the jig dance up and down...)

[Tarmac]

Jig?  Makes me feel like Riverdancin!

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Tarmac
You are not directly coercing them, but democratic coercion is still coercion.  Voting for, or asking your representative to vote for, a ban on gay marriage is asking the government to coerce in your name.  

That's why we have constitutional protections, and judicial oversight (although I agree to a large extent on your objection to judicial lawmaking) - because what the majority wants is not necessarily what's right.

But they make provision to not cater to the extreme minority.  That is  right.  That's why the amendment must obtain successive 25% votes in the house, then 2/3rds in the referendum.