Originally Posted By DlandDug Tom-- are you suggesting that we have just heard a fine declaration of authentic frontier gibberish?
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Ah Texas. What a state. Personally, I didn't get an opportunity to vote yesterday. I wasn't too fond of the Constitutional Amendment (because if you know me, you know I am not a big fan of legislating morality), but what is done is done. And yes Austin really is in a sea of Red. More like an ocean. This state is wonderfully conservative. Ah home. Even if it is my adopted home. Texas, by God!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<This state is wonderfully conservative.>> How appropriate that Texas and Minnesota are at opposite ends of I-35.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 RoadTrip, isn't Minnesota the place that put a "professional" wrestler in as a governor? On a side note, we now have two Predator actors who have been Governors. Who's next? Is Carl Weathers still alive?
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Depends upon whether or not he is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Green.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>More importantly, can the Predator himself run?<< A stealth candidate whose true nature can't be seen until it's too late? Nah - he'll be nominated to the Supreme Court instead.
Originally Posted By idleHands "The majority have voted against it same as they did here in California!" Interracial marriage bans were still on the books in 13 states, when SCOTUS made them unconstitutional in 1967. Over 70% of Americans at that time believed the interracial marriage bans should have been legally upheld by the Court, because that's what the people of those states wanted. Was SCOTUS wrong? Should the bans have remained on the books? Should any state have kept interracial marriage illegal, because that's what the citizens wanted? Discrimination might be what many folks want to legislate, but doing so weakens the democracy everyone is working hard to support. "Homosexuals already have more equal protection and others who have moral reservations would be discriminated against but I guess that’s okay with you?" Can gays legally marry in California? Since the Governator vetoed the State Legislature's bill, they cannot. So don't tell me that gays have "more equal protection" than the "moral reservationists" who don't want gays to have any. The folks who are against gay marriage are using the same "logic" as those who voted against interracial marriage in the fifties and sixties. The same individuals who wanted Rosa Parks to give up her seat to a white man and stand at the back of the bus. Same old tired bigoted rationalizations that have contempt for a different group at the core of their beliefs. "Homosexuality, is it a race, color, greed or gender? NO! " "Greed"? You got that right. NeoCons are some of the greediest people to ever walk the planet. And your basis is incorrect. This issue is all about GENDER. Gender is at the very core of this argument. I'm a woman who's both attracted to men and women. I'm bisexual. Ditto for my partner. We are not exclusively heterosexual in our behavior. And if we wanted to marry today, we could. No sweat. Because our GENDER just so happens to match the current requirements for getting a marriage license in California. I'm a woman, he's a man. We can get married, if we choose to, even though both of us also happen to enjoy the company of other individuals who match our GENDER. (We don't marry out of respect for our same-sex couple friends who cannot. That's how strongly we feel about this issue.) We're both gay, but we can still get married. And if we choose to have homosexual encounters with others outside the marriage, tough cookies to the NeoCons who would disapprove. Consensual sex between adults outside of marriage -- adultery -- is not illegal in this country. Go ahead and tell me that "marriage is sacred" and needs to be protected. If it's so gosh darn sacred, then how come bisexuals are legally allowed to marry and then have adulterous homosexual affairs without penalty? Or even heterosexual married couples, for that matter? It's legally OK for heterosexual couples to have adulterous affairs outside their marriages, yet we should "protect the sanctity of marriage" by banning homosexual couples from having legal access to marriage in the first place? What planet are y'all from? No, seriously? "Then who are you to say people be barded from marrying pet’s or multiple spouses?" Pets are animals. Their cognitive abilities are not formed well enough to enter into legal contracts. This is the reason why we do not allow minors to enter into legal contracts without the consent of their parent or legal guardian. Minors cannot fully understand all of the nuances and ramifications of the legal contract, therefore, they cannot enter into one. Multiple spouses is something that Utah allowed, but I'm uncertain as to the legal status of polygamy in that state now. It's difficult enough in dealing with community property and custody during divorce with two people; it would be a nightmare of epic proportions with more than two. No court would ever want to make legal rulings in situations such as these, especially given the current divorce rate in our country. Which according to Anderson Cooper yesterday, is now around 50%. Divorce at about 50%?? Yeah, marriage is certainly "sacred" in our nation. Tell it to the judges! "Or NAMBLA who can deny that these fine fellow’s as they were born with the same feelings?" See the reason above for why animals cannot enter into marriage contracts. Children are minors. The legal status for minors wanting to enter into any contract would remain the same. The laws governing minors and legal contracts would have to be changed first. And how likely is that to happen? It won't. The vast majority of our citizenry recognizes the need to protect our children's best interests. This would definitely include our children's ability to enter into legal contracts without adult supervision. Very foolish. No way this would ever change. The only condition in which a minor can enter into a marriage contract without the consent of a parent or legal guardian is when that minor is at least 16 years of age, and also pregnant. Many states allow for these young pregnant girls to marry without parental permission. And even then, I don't know how many states still have these marriage laws on their books. But that is one exception to the ludicrous adult/minor marriage scenario you're suggesting would occur, should gay marriage become legal.
Originally Posted By idleHands Sorry for the long-winded post, but after helping to defeat the Governator's BS "special election" yesterday, I'm feeling a bit stronger in arguing against discriminating bigotheads this morning.
Originally Posted By idleHands And Labuda... I feel your pain. Our State Legislature in CA did the right thing, but the Governator vetoed the bill, in a desperate attempt to appease the only group left in the state who will vote for him next November. I'm glad you at least have Austin as your home turf. It is a mahhhvelous oasis of liberal values in a sea of close-minded idiots. Austin rocks. I must arrange another visit to your lovely city and the SoCo district once again. It's been way too long!
Originally Posted By Labuda Trippy - if only it were that easy. I love Texas, even if the majority of people who live here (and vote) are bigoted jerks. patrickegan - what kind of sick person refers to members of NAMBLA as "fine fellows"? And, btw, give me a break - NOBODY who's sane thinks an adult having a relationship with a child is a good idea. But if two adults love each other and want to commit to each other in the eyes of the law, they should be able to. Period.
Originally Posted By Labuda Well, whenever you do make it to Austin, gimme an email! I don't like to frequent 6th street, but I am familiar with the gay clubs here in town if you wanna check any out! My favorite bartender in town is actually at one of the gay clubs - he makes a KILLER electric lemonade!
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Idlehands, I am glad to see you full of fire and vitriol today. I always enjoy self-righteous indignation. I have said it once, I will say it again on these boards. Keep your sex life in the bedroom (or whatever room in the house you consider private) where it belongs and stop trying to politicize it. On a political level I certainately could care less what people do sexually in this state or anywhere else, but your posts smack of elitism. I don't feel comfortable about the decision made yesterday (for political considerations, not moral) but your comments make me feel even more uncomfortable.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Keep your sex life in the bedroom (or whatever room in the house you consider private) where it belongs and stop trying to politicize it.<< It wasn't her side that put this on the ballot, Disneyman.
Originally Posted By idleHands Thanks, Labuda! Much appreciated! And I'll be sure to let you know the next time I visit your lovely town!!
Originally Posted By idleHands Elitist? Moi? Because I feel that anyone who favors deliberately writing discrimination into any state or federal constitution is, by definition, a bigot? And being against bigotry in any way, shape, or form makes me an elitist? Well, if that be the case... then I guess I am an elitist. Whatever.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Looks like the PEOPLE spoke again regarding pretend marriages. Also, the radicals here in Oregon tried to overturn the Oregon Ban on marriage last week and were shot down in court.
