101 replies to this topic

[Deadshow Dan]

That's pretty crafty, since it's likely this provision would not stand against a legal challenge. A KofC hall is not, strictly speaking, a religious institution. If a hall owner rents for any wedding receptions other than those subsequent to a sacramental Catholic wedding, they'll be required to rent to any legally "married" couple. This obviously illegal provision of the pending law will be voided by the first court which hears the challenge.

Once the definition of "marriage" is broadened, a venue, like a KofC hall, by virtue of past SCOTUS rulings, must be made available to all (unless the owner decides to restrict rentals to sacramentally married Catholics) on an equal basis. Just as a wedding hall owner can't refuse to rent to a black or interracial married couple, the case will be made they can't refuse a gay couple's reception. KofC councils will be forced to get out of the wedding reception business, or restrict the rentals only to those sacramentally wedded.

Very clever.

I was thinking along the same line

However, I wonder if DOMA which does not recognize these marriages makes it different

[SunshineDrummer]

I guess you guys missed the fact that this is a discussion about marriage which touched very briefly on political views and religious views, but still got back to the main discussion point (marriage) and managed to stay quite civil and informative. (Well, until vic, TASB and Joker had to go open their big mouths about moving the thread. )

Personally, I think this is a milestone for us.

So stop yer bitchin'

[Uncle Coulro]

I was thinking along the same line

However, I wonder if DOMA which does not recognize these marriages makes it different

Good question.

[vic]

here are person who make interesting point on subject

http://lefti.blogspo...op-8-issue.html

A question about the latest Prop. 8 issue


If Judge Walker should be disqualified from ruling on Prop. 8 due to conflict of interest because he's gay, shouldn't 95% of the Congress be disqualified from voting for tax cuts for millionaires?

[TakeAStepBack]

I guess you guys missed the fact that this is a discussion about marriage which touched very briefly on political views and religious views, but still got back to the main discussion point (marriage) and managed to stay quite civil and informative. (Well, until vic, TASB and Joker had to go open their big mouths about moving the thread. )

Personally, I think this is a milestone for us.

So stop yer bitchin'

I guess you miss the fact that marriage is ALL about religion and regardless of anything else it should be catagorized accordingly.

Personally, I hope the bill gets passed. But for the intentive purpose of equality and fairness, leaving this in family and moving other threads that are politically and religiously charged is disrespectful to both the individual and the community. Personally.

[vic]

I guess you guys missed the fact that this is a discussion about marriage which touched very briefly on political views and religious views, but still got back to the main discussion point (marriage) and managed to stay quite civil and informative. (Well, until vic, TASB and Joker had to go open their big mouths about moving the thread. )

Personally, I think this is a milestone for us.

So stop yer bitchin'

we didn't let it get past the first page

and it IS a political issue, or else it wouldn't be an issue at all

anything to do with politicians, bills being passed, civil rights etc. is a political issue...just because obama chooses to mainly steer clear of it doesn't really make it different from the thread that was just moved

[Deadshow Dan]

actually vic that goes off topic. On topic would be other judge disqualified because (s)he is straight

[Uncle Coulro]

I guess you miss the fact that marriage is ALL about religion

There's a lot of people who completely disagree with you, and define "marriage" as a strictly utilitarian contract. I'm not one of them, however.

[vic]

actually vic that goes off topic. On topic would be other judge disqualified because (s)he is straight

good point

[Deadshow Dan]

The wedding I was at over Memorial Day had ZERO, NOTHING, NADA, to do with religion or politics

[TakeAStepBack]

There's a lot of people who completely disagree with you, and define "marriage" as a strictly utilitarian contract. I'm not one of them, however.

OK, so it is a political AND religiously fueled topic.....

[TakeAStepBack]

The wedding I was at over Memorial Day had ZERO, NOTHING, NADA, to do with religion or politics

Did they get a marriage certificate from the court house?
Did a religious figure join them?

[Joker]

I guess you miss the fact that marriage is ALL about religion and regardless of anything else it should be catagorized accordingly.

Personally, I hope the bill gets passed. But for the intentive purpose of equality and fairness, leaving this in family and moving other threads that are politically and religiously charged is disrespectful to both the individual and the community. Personally.

[SunshineDrummer]

I guess you miss the fact that marriage is ALL about religion and regardless of anything else it should be catagorized accordingly.

If its all about religion, then why are there civil marriage ceremonies? And you can get married by a judge, not a rabbi/priest/etc.

And why, when I chose to get married in a church in a Catholic Mass, was I required to get a marriage license from the local municipality?

And how come my church certificate is not accepted as proof that I am married, only the certificate filed in the County Clerk's office is?

Nice try, though.

[Deadshow Dan]

Did they get a marriage certificate from the court house?
Did a religious figure join them?

So changing your name is political? Getting a business license is political?
I know the woman who performed the ceremony said not one word about religion. I'm pretty sure she didn't say god or goddess even. I did not enquire what she did for a living

[TakeAStepBack]

Brehs, you can spin this 7 ways from start but this issue is both political and religious......

senator, marriage, bill, republican...all in the thread title......

[vic]

I guess you miss the fact that marriage is ALL about religion and regardless of anything else it should be catagorized accordingly.

Personally, I hope the bill gets passed. But for the intentive purpose of equality and fairness, leaving this in family and moving other threads that are politically and religiously charged is disrespectful to both the individual and the community. Personally.

it's not ALL about religion...you are legally bound when married...this is part of the main point of this fight going on...to be legally recognized as married couples

if it was just a religious thing we could just start a new religion that is more tolerant:wink:

[vic]

If its all about religion, then why are there civil marriage ceremonies? And you can get married by a judge, not a rabbi/priest/etc.

And why, when I chose to get married in a church in a Catholic Mass, was I required to get a marriage license from the local municipality?

And how come my church certificate is not accepted as proof that I am married, only the certificate filed in the County Clerk's office is?

Nice try, though.

so you're saying it's a political issue

wrong forum'd

[Deadshow Dan]

A second republican state senator has announced support for the bill.

One vote away!

http://cityroom.blog...sage-in-albany/

[jme]

I guess you miss the fact that marriage is ALL about religion

my marriage had nothing to do with religion.

[vic]

A second republican state senator has announced support for the bill.

One vote away!

http://cityroom.blog...sage-in-albany/

awesome:rose:

[SunshineDrummer]

Brehs, you can spin this 7 ways from start but this issue is both political and religious......

The debate over who should & shouldn't be allowed to get married has become both, even though it shouldn't be.

The basic concept of marriage? I don't think its either political or religious. Its 2 people committing their lives to each other. How you decide to express or celebrate that is up to you.

[TakeAStepBack]

senator, marriage, bill, republican...all in the thread title......

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libido, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

[deadheadskier]

my marriage had nothing to do with religion.

sign'd

[Spidergawd]

my marriage had nothing to do with religion.

sign'd

Also sign'd.

[Depends]

senator, marriage, bill, republican...all in the thread title......

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libido, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

tl;dr

Sounds like you assume that if the gov't is involved then it it a political discussion.

If I ask whether to take the Merritt or I-95 (one a state road, one a federal) is that a political topic also?

[Spidergawd]

Has anyone said "start a thread" yet?

[TakeAStepBack]

tl;dr

Sounds like you assume that if the gov't is involved then it it a political discussion.

If I ask whether to take the Merritt or I-95 (one a state road, one a federal) is that a political topic also?

Holy hell. The discussion is about a vote in the senate to pass a fucking bill to allow gay marriage....

Just because this thread doesnt try and pull someone head out of the sand and make them have to see the world without rainbow fart glasses on, doesnt negate the FACT this is a political fucking discussion people.

[deadheadskier]

wait a minute

are we arguing where the politics of where certain threads should reside on the GOTV board?

[TakeAStepBack]

Not anymore. I just wont respect the VGs and I'll plaster politics, religion, sex and whatever all over the family board with complete disregard.

[SunshineDrummer]

Has anyone said "start a thread" yet?

You just did.

wait a minute

are we arguing where the politics of where certain threads should reside on the GOTV board?

FTW

[SunshineDrummer]

Not anymore. I just wont respect the VGs and I'll plaster politics, religion, sex and whatever all over the family board with complete disregard.

You do realize that I'm not going to move this thread purely because you're acting like such a jerk about it, right?

[Uncle Coulro]

OK, so it is a political AND religiously fueled topic.....

I definitely think so.

[TakeAStepBack]

It wasn't going to get moved anyway.

[jme]

You do realize that I'm not going to move this thread purely because you're acting like such a jerk about it, right?

oh, I thought it was just because Dan started the thread

[Joker]

There's even a picture of a fucking politician added!!!

[TakeAStepBack]

oh, I thought it was just because Dan started the thread

This.

[SunshineDrummer]

oh, I thought it was just because Dan started the thread

Huh?

[deadheadskier]

Dan has politically thread privileges that Joker and TASB do not.

they should start a thread

[Deadshow Dan]

Threads I've started here are moved.

I actually don't start a lot of those types of threads these days.

See for yourself: http://gatheringofth...earchid=1943168 Any that say P&R are moved threads (and one to L&S , which as soon as I posted it, realized I shouldn't have)

[TakeAStepBack]

Like I said. Respect within a community comes from both sides showing it equally on all points. I happily obey the rules of the board on a regular basis and even remain polite in instances where I dont feel I need to be. This thread is an example of that fact. I posted in here slamming Obama and bringing up the correlation between finances, and marriage...regardless of sexual orientation....

Dan PM'd me his disgust with my post. Claiming "troll" and "Dick move" and "shitty". I apologized to Dan that he felt that way even though I do not and changed my post out of respect (without returning any insults I might add).

But when I see complete disregard for the rules in a community by some and not others, I take that as disrespectful. So I don't feel I should have to provide that same courtesy in return any longer. My post was moved to P&R while it was on the same page as this one. While I wont be loosing sleep over it, I will no longer bother to be respectful of the catalog of forums and not create extra work for VGs by misplacing content when I am sure it will get moved.

Just because one subject on politics tickles peoples balloon knot, and others they would like to just silently go away (even though they wont) doesn't mean that there should be a double standard within the community.

A shame really.

[Joker]

Stay classy Dan Siego

[Deadshow Dan]

TaSB, first of all thanks for bringing a PM into the public. They're PM, not M. It really has no relevance to your point and was an unnecessary breach. What I say to you in private has nothing to do with whether this post should be in what forum and whether or not the post should be moved or whether there is uneven moving of threads.

Second, I specifically said you're not a troll. I apologize if I was not clear enough about that and if it left you with the impression that I feel that way. You are not a troll.

[TakeAStepBack]

Fair. BUT. You could have handled that so much differently if you really felt that way.

"Hey, Dave.

I'm really passionate about this subject and would prefer that you don't inject things that arent directly related to the subject. I understand your point of view, but would like this thread to remain as a "YAY!" thing as I Im pulling for this one."

I would have changed my post in seconds anyway.

I think it is important to understand these types of things, Dan. And I am not mad or hold what you said against you. Your passion took control and that was obvious. My beef was with the VGs that refused and still do to move this thread.

[TakeAStepBack]

I also understood your point and it was kang'd by brahnold DHS.....

[Deadshow Dan]

Fair. BUT. You could have handled that so much differently if you really felt that way.

TaSB:
As this is a personal matter having to do with a private discussion, I will not reply or characterize your response in public, except to ask that if you have issues with anything I say privately I encourage you to voice them. I respect you and admire you and want to address anything I say to you that you have a problem with .
However, let's try to do that one on one. Not in public.
Now I'm off to play some hockey , so later.

[TakeAStepBack]

This issue transcends us personally. I apologized and respect you, Dan. I did not make my post in spite of your actions. As this thread remains in family despite my objections along with a few. If I was offended I would have spoke up. I'm making the point of decision and how we all treat each other. I was never bothered by your PM until feeling disrespected by having this remain in family. I happily changed my post.

The shame doesn't really belong to you, Dan. I was wow'd but certainly not insulted.

[Deadshow Dan]

But when I see complete disregard for the rules in a community by some and not others, I take that as disrespectful. So I don't feel I should have to provide that same courtesy in return any longer.

As to this...

My understanding of what you are saying is that I have complete disregard for the rules. Let me first say emphatically that I take issue with this. You're wrong.

But hey, let's say you are correct in that.

Isn't what you're saying is "two wrongs make right"? Just because I have complete disrespect (though, again, that is wrong) doesn't mean you should.

Or put another way, I urge you not to have a complete disregard for the rules.

[TakeAStepBack]

Dan, what I'm saying doesnt reflect you. It's about the board'd overall consent.

[TakeAStepBack]

and obey the rules too. Im saying Im NOT going to bother categorizing my posts any longer....