Fail!

This didn't do anything towards getting the government out of the marriage business and is blatantly prejudiced against polygamy. 

Pushing for specialized legislation to support one minute portion of the populace while persecuting another minute portion for practices that are widely supported elsewhere in the world is the worst sort of injustice.

Emmeran wrote:

Fail!

This didn't do anything towards getting the government out of the marriage business and is blatantly prejudiced against polygamy. 

Pushing for specialized legislation to support one minute portion of the populace while persecuting another minute portion for practices that are widely supported elsewhere in the world is the worst sort of injustice.

I've read that, historically, only relatively wealthy people officially"married" and that marriage as we practise it is a legal construct that consolidates, protects, and possibly maximizes household gain while minimizing input from external sources of support such as governments and charities for needs such as health care.  Assumptions about reasonable contributions to and withdrawals from the economic unit are based on a two-partner model. 

Relatively benign and operationalized means of redistributing the value accrued/brought into these unions in the case of divorce are also assumed, and also based on a two-partner model.  Combining the possible economic constellations of polygamy with the diversity of state divorce laws to determine asset ownership and support liabilities would be a total fucking nightmare.

I'm actually not particularly excited about this. I don't believe the state has any business in regulating relationships. If the state must do so, make all marriages civil unions and leave marriage to the church. Back in the old days, the point was to overturn the system - including marriage - not to buy into it.

Ah well.

Emmeran wrote:

You have to admit the queer-matrimony subject has been pretty much been beaten to a pulp and it's just a matter of time before the legislation gets passed.

I think you're missing the point.  Unless there's a constitutional amendment nobody needs to pass any legislation.  In about 30 days (I didn't exactly understand what the 30 days was for, red tape, I guess) any gay couple can be legally married in California.

There is already a group trying to get a ballot initiative together to change the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, by the way.

I actually agree with Taint on the civil union thing.  I think the whole reason why there has been any controversy is this conflation of legal vs. religious vs. commitment marriage.  It's very frustrating when I try to talk with my parents about the issue for that reason.  It kind of reminds me of the Christmas vs. Jesus' Birthday thing in a way.

Emmeran wrote:

Fail!

This didn't do anything towards getting the government out of the marriage business and is blatantly prejudiced against polygamy. 

Pushing for specialized legislation to support one minute portion of the populace while persecuting another minute portion for practices that are widely supported elsewhere in the world is the worst sort of injustice.

Who the hell wants more than one wife????

Conversely, one husband is enough for me, thank you.

Emmeran wrote:

You have to admit the queer-matrimony subject has been pretty much been beaten to a pulp and it's just a matter of time before the legislation gets passed.

And I do admit it. More than half of all heterosexuals can't make their own marriages work, much less preserve their "sanctity"--or their dignity--yet here we are with this tedious non-debate tossed back in the Presidential Three-Ring Circus all over again. A political non-starter, most candidates do everything to avoid discussing it because they know what a fruitless (no pun intended) clunker it is.

I never asked the State to legitimize me or the people I choose to care about. If I needed that to survive, then I'd be in a daily world of disappointment. While I do, in principle, always resent any law or practice that creates a second-class citizenship, I have very little interest in being married, myself. I might advocate the right for whoever wants it (minus the weddings to trees, dogs, multiple spouses, children, et al.), but it is ultimately grasping at the straws of traditionalism. If unions can be formalized on paper to be as equal among their peers, then goody fucking gumdrops...but if the reason they can't is because we'll get the ol' Nazis-riding-dinosaurs collapse of Western Civilization, then someone had better take a harder look at media portrayals of "marriages" like Britney Spears'. THAT'S what we want? No effin' way.

opsec wrote:

Those who oppose gay marriage claim that it represents a threat to the "family".  Which means crotchfruit.  Which gay people can't have.  What's the downside?!

It's a common misconception.  Everyone knows that gay men were created through anal sex, like their fathers, and their fathers before them.

Emmeran wrote:

I must ask - why is homosexuality OK and polygamy wrong?

You don't normally strike me as being this dense.  Monogamy is OK and polygamy is wrong. 

Or are you just trying to start a rhubarb?

Just watched Tony Perkins debate Dan Savage about this on Anderson Cooper.

Perkins hit the main points of his side:

-Children do better with two opposite sex parents.  Gay couples adopt, and then warp, children.

-Marriage has been defined this way for, like, ever.

-It opens the door to polygamy.  He didn't say man-snake weddings, but I know he wanted to.

-Nobody wants it.  Public opinion is on his side.

-This should be left to the legislative process, not decided by the judiciary.

Savage rebutted all of them:

-Studies show gay couples' children do just fine.

-Marriage has been redefined countless times throughout history.

-Polygamy (or man-snake) should be debated on its merits, and is a separate issue.  Cross that bridge if we come to it.

-The courts are meant to protect citizen's rights against unconstitutional or illegal rulings.  Balance of powers, ect.  Gay marriage bans are an equal protection under the law issue.  You can also view it as


Savage did very well.  Perkins, to his credit, is staying away from morality issues, but his arguments were crumbling before Cooper cut them off.  Most arguments against gay marriage do crumble in the face of the points Savage brought up, which is why opponents fall back on morality or God's will.  I believe my philosophy 101 professor would refer to that as an "appeal to authority", then write the word "fail" on the chalkboard. 

no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Laws cannot favor some.  Marriage is a legal issue so long as  the government is involved.  You want the libertarian answer?  Fuck your marriage tax breaks, fuck your legal spousal rights of inheritance, fuck your joint health care, and especially fuck the "half of what's yours is mine when we separate". 

No government sanctioned marriage.  You make your own contracts (or not) concerning your property and money with the person you're with.  You are two people (or more, or one and a snake) joined by a non-legally binding ceremony.  What you do with the legal issues after that is up to you, and no government entity can stand in your way- just as no government entity can stop me from leaving my possessions to my neighbor when I die, co-signing a loan with my friend to buy a house, etcetera.

Well, on an entirely different note, I just returned from the celebration on Castro Street. Since it's a weeknight, it was packed but hardly chaos. The block between 18th and Market was closed off and a stage was set up with a DJ. Hundreds of people were dancing and others were milling about, greeting friends and smiling like they'd just won the lottery. Everyone was excited and optimistic and talking about the Supreme Court decision and wondering about the longer term implications for their relationships. Friends in triad relationships - I ran into several - said marriage wasn't particularly important to them but they were pleased with the results. Others were talking about their wedding plans.

What particularly struck me was how many of those present hadn't even been born until the 1980s or later and had absolutely no memories of Stonewall or the onset of the AIDS crisis. At 42, I'm a part of the first generation to follow Stonewall.

Most important, however, was the heavy cruising. I even picked up a phone number.

Marriage equality, indeed.

raoul.duke wrote:

Laws cannot favor some.  Marriage is a legal issue so long as  the government is involved.  You want the libertarian answer?  Fuck your marriage tax breaks, fuck your legal spousal rights of inheritance, fuck your joint health care, and especially fuck the "half of what's yours is mine when we separate". 

No government sanctioned marriage.  You make your own contracts (or not) concerning your property and money with the person you're with.  You are two people (or more, or one and a snake) joined by a non-legally binding ceremony.  What you do with the legal issues after that is up to you, and no government entity can stand in your way- just as no government entity can stop me from leaving my possessions to my neighbor when I die, co-signing a loan with my friend to buy a house, etcetera.

I couldn't have said it better. Just think of how nice we would all be forced to become to each other if that happened.

Well, there goes one of my arguements against marriage. Even though it's (still) not for me, I am very happy for all my friends.

Everyone deserves the right to be emotionally scarred and financially decimated by divorce.

Ah, Larry Kramer. He manages to be simultaneously tedious and loud.

fnord wrote:

I didn’t realize Larry Kramer and Michael Petrelis were still alive.  From what I remember about them, they’re both severely disturbed drama queens.

That's on a good day.

God has sent an earthquake to show his disapproval of California and gay marriage.  The earthquake was in Alabama.

Taint wrote:

Well, on an entirely different note, I just returned from the celebration on Castro Street. Since it's a weeknight, it was packed but hardly chaos. The block between 18th and Market was closed off and a stage was set up with a DJ. Hundreds of people were dancing and others were milling about, greeting friends and smiling like they'd just won the lottery. Everyone was excited and optimistic and talking about the Supreme Court decision and wondering about the longer term implications for their relationships. Friends in triad relationships - I ran into several - said marriage wasn't particularly important to them but they were pleased with the results. Others were talking about their wedding plans.

What particularly struck me was how many of those present hadn't even been born until the 1980s or later and had absolutely no memories of Stonewall or the onset of the AIDS crisis. At 42, I'm a part of the first generation to follow Stonewall.

Most important, however, was the heavy cruising. I even picked up a phone number.

Marriage equality, indeed.

Aw, man I went out expecting parties because it's history in the making (on a Thursday night even!) and what better reason to celebrate... the Lex was pretty low-key except for a toast.
Although I'm a youngster, I feel very sentimental and proud of CA. I wasn't around for Stonewall but I did read the book.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Welcome to FagFest 2008.
Whoopie, you can get married.
Congratulations on joining the ranks of the happy, contented proles.
Next stop Jeeesus.
Idiots.

Actually, having had a chance to peruse the analyses of the ruling, the more interesting precedent is not necessarily the marriage part, but that the Supreme Court of CA declared that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" like race or gender, and that the state must show a compelling interest in order to create any law that discriminates, which is a much higher bar than previously existed.

Lurker wrote:

And Tojo, you're revealing your spic heritage with your anal sex/birth comment.

There aren't even any words there!  What does that mean, "play us out"?  Fuck it!  We'll do it live!  We'll do it live!

fnord wrote:

God has sent an earthquake to show his disapproval of California and gay marriage.  The earthquake was in Alabama.

I suspect he was showing his disapproval of Alabama.

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Welcome to FagFest 2008. Whoopie, you can get married. Congratulations on joining the ranks of the happy, contented proles. Next stop Jeeesus. Idiots.

You don't really believe observance of secular traditionalism leads to participation in a god-mongering idiocracy, do you? Not all gay men and women are quite that gullible, dear. Most of us had to deal with an ejection from whatever arbitrary faith we were born to, and reclamation of a theoretically once-a-lifetime rite doesn't really constitute running back to the flock. Fool me once, as they say...

You don't really believe that marriage is "an observance of secular traditionalism" do you? It's not. It's an act rooted in subservience to the lord of the manor, the church, the king, the state. Controlling the reproductive activities of one's subjects is of primary importance to any totalitarian regime.

pALEPHx wrote:

Now that someone like Ellen....

I assume you're talking TV at me. Please don't. It's a horrible American faux pas to assume that the rest of the world knows who the hell you're talking about. Don't know. Don't care. Please keep your herpetetic cultural references to yourself. Thank you.
Love,
WilberCL

tojo2000 wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Welcome to FagFest 2008.
Whoopie, you can get married.
Congratulations on joining the ranks of the happy, contented proles.
Next stop Jeeesus.
Idiots.

Actually, having had a chance to peruse the analyses of the ruling, the more interesting precedent is not necessarily the marriage part, but that the Supreme Court of CA declared that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" like race or gender, and that the state must show a compelling interest in order to create any law that discriminates, which is a much higher bar than previously existed.

Yes that is interesting but I do not think it is essential to the ruling. I am not well versed in this topic, but isn't it rather easy to be classified as a "suspect class" in CA?

The Court could have made the same ruling without making the "suspect class" designation.  Essentially did it not look at the current legal acceptence of CA domestic partnership laws and say what makes these different then calling it marriage? The cort found very little except in name. And if there is no difference except to stigmatize a certain group of people, by CA's equal standards under the law you would need a very compelling societal interest to discriminate against gays. In CA this standard against discrimination is very high so they would not even need to designate gays as a "suspect class". But it certainely makes the case even stronger.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-05-18 05:35:32)

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

It's an act rooted in subservience to the lord of the manor, the church, the king, the state. Controlling the reproductive activities of one's subjects is of primary importance to any totalitarian regime.

I think I'll give heterosexual union a LITTLE more credit than that. Perhaps, one of the last definitions of it was a medieval monstrosity, but it's come a long way, baby.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Now that someone like Ellen....

I assume you're talking TV at me. Please don't. It's a horrible American faux pas to assume that the rest of the world knows who the hell you're talking about. Don't know. Don't care. Please keep your herpetetic cultural references to yourself.

Herpe-wha? Are you talking about snakes or STDs? This item infiltrated most news sources. Ellen DeGeneres wishes to marry her pretty blond creature. Yippee for her. I wasn't sitting around waiting for folks like her to announce their unions. She's in California, is all I was saying. That puts her on the television. Like a lot of other faux mos and dykes. I'm happy she can advertise her sexuality now...since she didn't seem able to for the first years her show was on. You could not possibly be as cynical about this as someone who already lives it, so stop being such an amateur cunt. This whole mess makes me wish I was as bitter as Larry Kramer. At least I'd know how not to be such an "appeasing" muthafukka.

pALEPHx wrote:

I think I'll give heterosexual union a LITTLE more credit than that. Perhaps, one of the last definitions of it was a medieval monstrosity, but it's come a long way, baby.

How apt that you'd end that paragraph with a quote from a cynical attempt to sell cigarettes as a token of female liberation.
You are not looking beyond the borders of your own small universe. Most of the people in the world are OBVIOUSLY controlled by power structures that rely on sub-structures such as controlled marriage for their continued existence. The rest of the world, by which I mean we few who live in North America and parts of Europe, participate in the exact same power structures, but within an extremely thick and powerful web of "rights & liberty" propaganda that permeates our social institutions. Marriage is the bedrock of society, and the mother of our armies. Furthermore, society is the Many controlled by the Few. Marriage, almost by definition, is an act of subservience, obedience, at best accordance. So congrats on the big happy win. Time to get some brown shoes. Go to work. Go to church. You've come a long way, baby.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

How apt that you'd end that paragraph with a quote from a cynical attempt to sell cigarettes as a token of female liberation.

Marriage, almost by definition, is an act of subservience, obedience, at best accordance. So congrats on the big happy win. Time to get some brown shoes. Go to work. Go to church. You've come a long way, baby.

I'm glad you get all my insignificant refs and allusions. What's with the double post, tho? And it's Taylor, babe. Things were different back in "National Velvet" days, methinks. Can you believe she was actually on "General Hospital" once?

Anywhore... Pardoning your gimlet-eyed view of marriage, perhaps I am being somewhat contrary on the matter. Let me put it another way: If I concede your point that it's the worst, most undesirable thing on the planet, then it's still the worst, most undesirable thing that roughly ten percent of the entire population of this country cannot--if they should want it--have.

I happen to agree with you that it's...how did you put it?...an egregious affair and should probably be done away with for the good of all mankind, but I don't take toys away from happy children, either. Our own accord is immaterial. It's a Thing I Cannot Have. Not merely by that do I want it--because I am not a child and do not have magical illusions about what marriage is or can be--but would you deny its fiscal and legal benefits to anyone stupid enough to engage in it? It's their error to make, and since it is the law of the land that affords marriage participants (and serial procreators) greater benefits than the rest, who are we to say who can and cannot wed?

Would that we could, Wilber, would that we could...

MSG Tripps wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Time to get some brown shoes. Go to work. Go to church.

Brown Shoes Don't Make It

I'll listen to that later...after my wife gets back from the orchid show.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

taffy wrote:

Taint wrote:

Well, on an entirely different note, I just returned from the celebration on Castro Street. Since it's a weeknight, it was packed but hardly chaos. The block between 18th and Market was closed off and a stage was set up with a DJ. Hundreds of people were dancing and others were milling about, greeting friends and smiling like they'd just won the lottery. Everyone was excited and optimistic and talking about the Supreme Court decision and wondering about the longer term implications for their relationships. Friends in triad relationships - I ran into several - said marriage wasn't particularly important to them but they were pleased with the results. Others were talking about their wedding plans.

What particularly struck me was how many of those present hadn't even been born until the 1980s or later and had absolutely no memories of Stonewall or the onset of the AIDS crisis. At 42, I'm a part of the first generation to follow Stonewall.

Most important, however, was the heavy cruising. I even picked up a phone number.

Marriage equality, indeed.

Aw, man I went out expecting parties because it's history in the making (on a Thursday night even!) and what better reason to celebrate... the Lex was pretty low-key except for a toast.
Although I'm a youngster, I feel very sentimental and proud of CA. I wasn't around for Stonewall but I did read the book.

Welcome to FagFest 2008.
Whoopie, you can get married.
Congratulations on joining the ranks of the happy, contented proles.
Next stop Jeeesus.
Idiots.

What are you, a young anarchist, a homophobe, or something more interesting? Perhaps you're a Gay Shame activist? Are you a big dick that's only for the ladies?

Honestly, I could pretty much give a flying fuck about the existence of marriage, but if it's available, it should be for everyone.