Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

"Think of the children." Imagine the next generation of children not thinking it unusual to see a gay couple at school events cheering on their child. Or, imagine the next generation of children having gay friends, straight friends, and bi-friends with no one thinking a thing of it. In my own lifetime I've witnessed parents worrying about their children sitting in the same restaurant as a black person. I've witnessed parents removing their children from public schools because they were being contaminated by racial integration. Look how far we've come in just one generation. Imagine how far we can come in the mindset towards gays in the next generation. Laws were required and integration was forced before real changes were seen with regards to race. Laws will be required and equality under the laws enforced before we will see real changes with regards to sexual preference.

Of course murder is murder - how is that a special protection? Are you saying that because they can't be murdered under the law, they have equal standing as a married couple? What special privileges would same-sex marriage allow that are already in place? I know of no provisions of any law on the books, or under consideration, that gives gay couples special privileges or protections not afforded to straight married couples. I don't understand your point.

We are left then with moral fiber. I think that's what this really comes down to and I'll take that point back to the pre-civil rights movement of the '60s. Interracial marriage was considered immoral, and in many places illegal, through the late 1980s and beyond. The calling cry was, "Think of the children." Brave couples married out of love, had children, raised them in a loving home, helped them face the prejudices of the world around them. Those children are now adults, marrying out of love, having children and raising them in a society that is much more tolerant than it was a few short decades ago. Moral fiber, in this case, is a reflection of fear. Fear of change, fear of the unusual, and fear of opening up one's brain to the concept that prejudice is never acceptable.

I do think of the children. I hope the generation of children growing up today will see laws enacted giving same-sex couples the right to marry. I hope they are more tolerant towards gays than the generations before them. And I hope they tackle any other bastions of prejudice they witness when they are adults as they think of their children.

Baldimo wrote:

It wouldn't hurt anyone per say but the children and the moral fiber of this country would suffer. We would be granting special privileges to a certain group of people such as we have already granted special protection to the same group of people. Is the murder of a straight person any different then the murder of a gay person? I have always thought murder was murder?

That's a compelling argument. In your view, would it solve the problem of social privileges if the state abolished marriage licenses altogether? As a single, I personally find it outrageous how the government privileges the group of married people just because they're married. At our, the single taxpayers', expense!

I am confused, are we talking the tax code here? That is a whole other can of worms. How can a truly single person (no domestic partner) benefit from most of the rights granted to married couples. This makes no sense to me. What am I missing?

Chrissee wrote:

I am confused, are we talking the tax code here? That is a whole other can of worms. How can a truly single person (no domestic partner) benefit from most of the rights granted to married couples. This makes no sense to me. What am I missing?

She can't -- but nevetheless, like a gay couple, her taxes pay for the rights granted to married people, which she cannot receive under current law. This privileges married couples over singles. Now, Baldimo said he had a problem with gay marriage because it would grant special privileges to a group of people. I suspect this is red herring he is selling us to camouflage that he just doesn't want gays to be together in the first place. So I asked him if he'd support resolving the privilege problem by abolishing the privileges of married couples altogether. (I suspect his answer will be 'no', and that this will reveal that the privilege weren't truly the issue for him.)

Chrissee wrote:

I am confused, are we talking the tax code here? That is a whole other can of worms. How can a truly single person (no domestic partner) benefit from most of the rights granted to married couples. This makes no sense to me. What am I missing?

She can't -- but nevetheless, like a gay couple, her taxes pay for the rights granted to married people, which she cannot receive under current law. This privileges married couples over singles. Now, Baldimo said he had a problem with gay marriage because it would grant special privileges to a group of people. I suspect this is red herring he is selling us to camouflage that he just doesn't want gays to be together in the first place. So I asked him if he'd support resolving the privilege problem by abolishing the privileges of married couples altogether. (I suspect his answer will be 'no', and that this will reveal that the privilege weren't truly the issue for him.)

why should the government recognize your marriage either ?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

why should the government recognize your marriage either ?

Heterosexual relationships have been a cornerstone for society since the beginning of time.

Thomas wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

I am confused, are we talking the tax code here? That is a whole other can of worms. How can a truly single person (no domestic partner) benefit from most of the rights granted to married couples. This makes no sense to me. What am I missing?

She can't -- but nevetheless, like a gay couple, her taxes pay for the rights granted to married people, which she cannot receive under current law. This privileges married couples over singles. Now, Baldimo said he had a problem with gay marriage because it would grant special privileges to a group of people. I suspect this is red herring he is selling us to camouflage that he just doesn't want gays to be together in the first place. So I asked him if he'd support resolving the privilege problem by abolishing the privileges of married couples altogether. (I suspect his answer will be 'no', and that this will reveal that the privilege weren't truly the issue for him.)

Unlike some I see a difference between race and homosexuality. I see one as a choice and the other as no choice. People are born black we don't know if they are born gay. Until this is proven I see homosexuality as a choice in life and nothing else..

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

why should the government recognize your marriage either ?

Heterosexual relationships have been a cornerstone for society since the beginning of time.

WTF? I am sure you can provide a citation to back up that sweeping claim.

Actually, in prehistoric societies, men preferred the company of other men, perhaps due to the fact that men outnumbered women three to one and since all child-bearing women were constantly pregnant, men were more readily available. Also, men were away for weeks at a time on hunting expeditions. It got awfully lonely out there hunting the saber-toothed. And cold. But two (and more) hot sweaty, hairy bodies kept the chill away.

Of course, with the men gone, the women found ways to pleasure each other as well. Whether, with child or not, intimacy was quite common. The women took care of the kids, often in couples, so there you had the first same sex parents right there at the dawn of time.

Heterosexual coitus was merely a necessary inconvenience.

So you see, homosexuality realtionships formed the bedrock of early human society.

And it hasn't changed much today. I know a couple guys who are escorts and almost all their "clients" are married.

What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.

What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.

mysteryman wrote:

What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.

Entering into a one marriage (monogamy) is lawful for some and unlawful for others. Accordingly, the courts apply the due process and equal protection clauses to determine if laws that allow marriage for some but prohibit marriage for others are constitutional or unconstitutional.

On the other hand, entering into MULTIPLE marriages (polygamy) is unlawful for everyone. This does not interfere with your religion anymore than making it unlawful to murder. Even if your religion sanctions human sacrifice, it is within the power of the government to criminalize acts that cause the death of others. Freedom of religion does not equate with freedom to break the law. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

He's right that it is still the govt looking into your bedroom.

Comparing the prohibitions against same-sex marriage to the prohibitions against polygamy is pure nonsense.

What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.