Prop 8?

non sequitur - The question at hand has zero relevance to homosexuals and their sexual practice only their right to marry.

T
K
O

It's in the mind's eye of the beholder -- sex might be beautiful or just fun to the adults who consent to indulge in it and the Victorian prudes, or those who want sex but are not getting any, can be in full denial of their motivation in opposing gay marriage. The more it's pointed out that there are six admonishments in the Old Testament aimed at homosexual sex and 362 towards heterosexuals, the more so many Christian zealots (bigots) are conveniently forgetting about that fact or choosing to ignore it and instead keep pointing their self-righteous judgemental fingers at everyone they don't understand.

They seem to have a special skill called hypocrisy when it comes to what "others" shouldn't do.

Correct -- first let's hear about what they do and don't do in the bedroom. Only missionary position sex to procreate is allowed, you know. I'm afraid they've already all taken the "hypocritic oath."

It's the best position LW. It's only good for procreation if you do it the Harry Stubbs way Professor Germaine Greer discussed in one of her books.

Which position do you think is better?

And what about forced sterilization of those non-white welfare wh*res who live in the inner cities (but not including Bristol Palin types) and who breed nothin' but tomorrow's criminals? Gotta get them worthless unmarried b*tches under state control.

The government control of sex is something out of "1984," and if two consenting adults are doing it behind closed doors and want to be legal partners, that's something that requires despotic control. It's under the auspices of right wing, conservative, fundamentalist religious bigots and they want to maintain that control. They are frightened at the idea that two men or two women want to stay together and live their lives in peace without any oppression. It's religious authoritarianism and all the good religious people I know, mostly Methodist for some reason, are strictly against it.

You have not understood 1984 old chap.

The consensus is not frightened of the idea that two men or two women want to stay together and live their lives in peace without any oppression.

They are frightened of it catching on and being all the rage and everybody getting in on it.

What have me rolling on the floor is that gay righters are demanding that the state grant them a license for thier sexual relationship at the same time complaining that the society have no business in thier private relationships.

You can not have it both ways and I agree no one should have a say one way or another concerning the private relationhips between adults but when the state is ask to grant benefits and rights base on a private relationship then you are making those relationships a matter of public concern not a private matter.

I could can less what gay men and women do in their homes but I do care that they are trying to claim benefits that the society design to encourage long term pair bonding between men and women due to the fact those relationships are the engine for the next generation of citizens.

Yes-- they do not seem to be aware of the trials and tribulations involved in marriage between a man and a woman in the service of an orderly continuation of society and which they escape from.

They seem to be trying to ape the initial romantic bit but they conveniently forget that there 50 more years of drudgery ahead which are often endured for the sake of the children.

Bill, a marriage license isn't a license for a sexual relationship. Sexual relationships require no license at all, gay or straight. A marriage license is about societal/public privileges not private ones.

T
K
O

Trying to pick up some more dirt rolling on the floor? Heterosexuals are not denied marriage licenses and society has no business in their private relationships. Demanding that right if one is gay or lesbian does not mean society or the government should than have a right to poke their nose into their private relationships either. A fallacious argument if there ever was one, singling out one group who just wants the same rights and the majority, exactly why the Bill of Rights was written.

It's the religious, right-wing fundamentalist Christians and Mormons who made it a public matter due to their mores about sex based on the Old Testament and the Mormon Bible. The contributors to Prop 8 have been unmasked and it's clearly religious organizations getting involved with politics to exert their authoritarianism to suppress a minority group they don't like.

What are these benefits that society designed? Birth control pills? Tax exemptions? Is that the primary reason hetero couples have children -- so save on their taxes? The benefit of having a child you have no interest in raising, either having sex without protection with no intent on marriage or having those children as a couple, then divorcing (half the population) and hustling the children back-and-forth to be raised by two people who hate each other? While gay and lesbian adopt unwanted or other parent-less children, or Lesbians having their own children by artificial insemination, or a gay couple using a surrogate mother to have children. How about those heterosexual couples who remain unmarried and beget children, sometimes one of the sex partners not wanting to be involved with the raising of those children or just has just plain disappeared or is unknown. 50% of hetero couples get divorced and many of them have children. Add that to the other one parent or no parent children and the figures is pretty high. Again, what are these benefits that force or encourage straight couples to have children?

Your smokescreen to hide the real reason you don't want gays to marry is transparent as hell.

Your argument is both illogical and without merit. A marriage license is not a license for the STATE to be omnipresent in the marital bedroom. Demanding the right to equal protection under the law is consistent with also demanding the right to liberty/privacy. Couples in intimate relationships are not required to choose among the two rights as an either/or proposition. All persons in this country are entitled to assert all of their constitutionally-secured rights. They have the right to get married AND they have a right to keep the government out of their bedrooms.

You are not awared that it is ground for annulment if a married couple had never had have sex correct?

Yes we are in cartoon land here.

It is still on the law books in my state of Florida my lawyer friend that you are breaking the law if you openly live in "sin" with a sexual partner and this law had been used as a reason to fired a woman from a police department not that long ago in my state.

They was nice enough to give her a chocie of making her relationship legal or being fired.

She was then indeed fired.

Please take note lawyer Debra in the State of Florida sex and married is tie together under the law.

If you are openly living in sin you are breaking Florida law even if it not normally enforce it had been ground for firing of at least one police woman I am aware of.

Second in my state a lack of the abiltiy to preform the sex act can be ground for annulment and having sex can in reverse also rarified a married contract that could had been annul otherwise.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.--If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2596; GS 3519; RGS 5407; CGL

FLORIDA ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

Marriages can be formally terminated either by dissolution (also known as a divorce) or by annulment. An annulment is usually preferred for religious reasons, and is accompanied by a church annulment procedure. A decree annulling a marriage is grounded on the fact that a valid marriage never existed, either because the marriage was void or voidable. A void or voidable marriage may be terminated by dissolution or annulment.

Florida has no special rule or statute which governs annulment. The general venue statute is followed and the action is commenced in circuit court. The proceeding may be brought by the innocent party, by his or her heirs or legal guardian. The action may not, however, be maintained by an alleged next friend of an incompetent adult. The action may apparently be brought at any time.

With the proper factual situation, the courts might allow parents to seek annulment of the marriage of an underage child, when in the best interest of the child, since some other contracts made by under age children may be set aside upon the initiative of their parents or guardians.

Annulment is an appropriate method of termination of the marriage where one of the parties lacked the capacity to contract; either because of a prior existing marriage, extreme intoxication or lack of the requisite mental capacity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lack of physical capacity to consummate the marriage may also be sufficient grounds for annulment, although impotency should not be confused with sterility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the lack of intent to contract or to fulfill the contract can be proven, the marriage can be annulled. Lack of consent to the marriage can manifest itself in a marriage ceremony held in jest. A marriage was annulled where the older brother of the father of a woman's child married her solely for the purpose of preventing the child from being illegitimate and with no intent that the marriage be consummated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A marriage induced by fraud and deceit can be annulled where the marriage has not been consummated. Misrepresentation of pregnancy, alone, has been held an insufficient reason for annulment. It appears, however, that sexual intercourse operates as a complete ratification of a marriage otherwise voidable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A marriage entered into under duress may be annulled if the duress dominated throughout the relationship of the parties to the extent that one party was prevented from acting as a free agent.

Despite the fact that the contesting party may prove some of the previously mentioned defects in the marriage, annulment may not be allowed, where that party has ratified the marriage. If the person seeking annulment is aware of the defects and nevertheless confirms the marriage, it is deemed ratified and not later subject to annulment. In effect, the complaining party has waived his right to contest the contract, unless it can be shown that the person ratifying the agreement was not aware of all of the material facts and therefore could not have knowingly waived his rights. See Lambertini v. Lambertini, where the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the granting of an annulment where the parties cohabitated for thirty years, held themselves out as husband and wife, bought property as tenants by the entireties, bore and raised two children and the testimony showed the parties reasonably relied on the marriage.

So, if you believe you qualify for an annulment, seek the advice and assistance of a competent family lawyer. Though, you may find that a dissolution of marriage will be far easier, less expensive and faster. To get started with a dissolution of marriage (a divorce), click here.

BACK TO HOME PAGE

Yeah sure, in some states. It's still irrelevant. Getting married isn't a license to have sex. Having sex doesn't require a license. Gays don't want to get married so they can have sex.

They don't need to.
K
O

And you should note that state laws that criminalize intimate associations are unconstitutional.

The simple concept that a state-issued marriage license is not a state-issued sex license cannot penetrate BillRM's hard head.

Can't help it if we still have states like Florida that lives by proxy in everybody's bedroom. They need more personal sex or less religion.