North Carolina gay marriage foes have a slight lead ahead of Tuesday vote

[DragonStryk72]

of course you don't; but sure as hell act like your entitled to something you know nothing about.
The immunity from being compelled to testify is a privilege which exists outside of matrimony; thus, you can't say marriage alone gives you that privilege.

The only thing that I can possibly see that married people can do, which others cannot, is file their taxes jointly-- that is it. But seeing as how our tax code is fucked 8 ways from Sunday, I'd like to see a plethora of changes there anyways. If that's one of them, fine by me. Quite frankly, now that dependents need their own tax ID anyways, the purpose for married filings lacks foundation. It should just be household, as I don't see how the tax burden would differ between married persons or two cohabitants. If me and FJ want to move in together and share financial resources, regardless of whether we're lovers, it should be a financial decision the two of us should be free to enter into on a contractual basis.

See, I can go with this, and I believe that Jim, my most ardent opponent on gay marriage, could go along with this too. The problem is the rhetoric, and from how you've been writing in this thread, I see you know what I'm talking about. The fact the you are in favor of equal rights for gays, and having to defend your stance from those very people says a lot about where the fight is right now.

You know, it's funny, but the thing about gay marriage is, for those who are actually proponents of it for the right reasons, they're fighting for the right for them not to be noticed. Think about it, when was the last time anyone was surprised to see a black military officer? Seventy years ago, we didn't have that, and now, it's become the norm, not the exception. The best thing that gays can hope for is to eventually be treated with, "uh huh, moving on." That's the end game, to have acceptance on a normal basis, which means to be ignored entirely by the populace at large.

[tailfins]

Yep, another day and another attitude. I simply asked an innocent question. I'm not dealing with your mood swings, maybe a rock will come in behind me and try to discuss things with you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTF-nXqW1cs

[logroller]

I don't know what DS72 read into in my post but let me set the records straight. I'm a simpleminded trigger happy homophobic bigot that blames women for getting pregnant.;)

[tailfins]

I don't know what DS72 read into in my post but let me set the records straight. I'm a simpleminded trigger happy homophobic bigot that blames women for getting pregnant.;)

Should we start a "simpleminded trigger happy homophobic bigot that blames women for getting pregnant" club and go sit on the Group W bench?

[DragonStryk72]

I don't know what DS72 read into in my post but let me set the records straight. I'm a simpleminded trigger happy homophobic bigot that blames women for getting pregnant.;)

Lol, amazing how many of us there are, that are campaigning for equal rights? I think our movement needs a better strategy.

[Wind Song]

Oh, I see, you CAN be nice, and reasonable with people you post with - I just hadn't realized it meant the other person needed to share your same point of view.

This isn't a helpful post.

[Wind Song]

Should we start a "simpleminded trigger happy homophobic bigot that blames women for getting pregnant" club and go sit on the Group W bench?

No need to start one, you already have one. The entire forum is your club.

[logroller]

Lol, amazing how many of us there are, that are campaigning for equal rights? I think our movement needs a better strategy.
Maybe we could start camping outing public places under the guise of protest.
Honestly, the one thing I try to convey is, regardless of one's moral opinions of marriage, nobody should want government enforcing morality; because all's fine when it's your moral being enforced, but eventually the shoe will be on the other foot.

[Wind Song]

1800–1899

1830 – Married women are granted the right to own property in their own name, instead of being owned exclusively by the husband, in Mississippi (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mississippi).
1848 – Married women are granted the right to own property in their own name in New York (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/New_York).
1856 – The platform of the Republican Party (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) refers to polygamy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Polygamy) as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (alongside slavery (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Slavery)).[1] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-0) At the time, polygamy was a practice of some Mormons (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mormon). (See Mormonism and polygamy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy).)
1862 – The United States Congress (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Congress) enacts the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act), signed by Abraham Lincoln (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln), which made bigamy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Bigamy) a felony (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Felony) in the territories punishable by $500 or five years in prison.
1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Bradwell_v._Illinois) the Supreme Court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law. [2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1)
1874 – Congress passes the Poland Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Poland_Act), which transfers jurisdiction over Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act cases to federal prosecutors and courts in Utah (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Utah), which were not controlled by Mormons.
1879 – The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States).
1882 – Congress passes the Edmunds Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Edmunds_Act), which prohibits not just bigamy, which remained a felony, but also bigamous cohabitation, which was prosecuted as a misdemeanor (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Misdemeanor), and did not require proof an actual marriage ceremony had taken place. The law also allows polygamists to be held indefinitely without a trial.
1887 – Congress passes the Edmunds-Tucker Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Edmunds-Tucker_Act), which allows prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.
1890 – Mormons in Utah officially renounce polygamy through the 1890 Manifesto (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/1890_Manifesto).

[edit (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_civil_marriage_in_the_ United_States&action=edit&section=2)] 1900–1999

1900 – All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
1904 – Mormons in Utah officially again renounce polygamy with the Second Manifesto (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Second_Manifesto), excommunicating anyone who participates in future polygamy.
1907 – All women acquire their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
1933 – Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
1948 – California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban (Perez v. Sharp (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp)).
1965 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
1967 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)).[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-solidarity-2)
1969 – The first no-fault divorce (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/No-fault_divorce) law is adopted in California.[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-solidarity-2)
1971 – The Supreme Court upholds an Alabama (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Alabama) law which automatically changes a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
1971 – The Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriage (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) (Baker v. Nelson (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)).
1972 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
1973 – Maryland becomes the first state in the U.S. to define marriage as "between a man and a woman" in statute.
1975 – Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
1975 – Three states outlaw same-sex marriage by statutes.
1976 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
1993 – All 50 states have revised laws to include marital rape.[3] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-solidarity-2)
1994 – 40 of the 50 states amend their marriage statutes to outlaw same-sex marriage.
1996 – President Bill Clinton (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Bill_Clinton) signs the Defense of Marriage Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) into law, which outlaws federal recognition of both same-sex marriage and polygamy, and removes any requirement that states recognize such marriages entered into in other jurisdictions.
1998 – Hawaii (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Hawaii) amends its constitution to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, in response to a court ruling which would otherwise have allowed such marriages. Alaska (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Alaska) becomes the first state to bar same-sex marriage in its constitution.
1998 – South Carolina is the penultimate state in the U.S. to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution.

[edit (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_civil_marriage_in_the_ United_States&action=edit&section=3)] 2000–present

2000 – Nebraska amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
2000 – Alabama becomes the last state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution.
2002 – Nevada amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
2004 – Massachusetts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts) grants and recognizes same-sex marriages, while 14 states rush to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions in response.
2005 – Texas (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Texas) amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
2006 – 26 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions.
2006 - 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Nebraska's ban on gay marriage.[4] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-3)
2008 – New York (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York) starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other places but does not grant such marriages. Connecticut (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut) begins granting same-sex marriages. California (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California) briefly grants same-sex marriage until the passage of Proposition 8 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)) later in the year, but continues recognizing marriages entered into prior to the proposition's passage. 29 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions.
2009 – Iowa (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa) and Vermont (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Vermont) grant and recognize same-sex marriages; the District of Columbia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia) starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other places but does not grant such marriages. Maine (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine) rescinds planned legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote.
2010 – New Hampshire (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Hampshire) and the District of Columbia grant same-sex marriages. Maryland (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Maryland) recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger), a district court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_district_courts) overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage (however, the decision is stayed pending an appeal).
2011 – New York (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York) begins granting same-sex marriages.
2012 – A federal appeals court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals) upholds the district court decision (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger) that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage (the case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court)).[5] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-4)

[DragonStryk72]

Maybe we could start camping outing public places under the guise of protest.
Honestly, the one thing I try to convey is, regardless of one's moral opinions of marriage, nobody should want government enforcing morality; because all's fine when it's your moral being enforced, but eventually the shoe will be on the other foot.

Well, that's pretty much my take on it.

[Wind Song]

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue. It makes no sense to completely do away with civil marraige. All we need to do is make it equitable. Marriage privatization, (AKA "Getting the government out of the marriage business") isn't the solution. It’s taken a ton of hard work since the 1960s to convince people that gay people deserve rights. We are close to getting marriage equality. Marriage privatization might sound idyllic to libertarians but given that there are real, existing gay people who are being put at a disadvantage now by not having marriage equality.. This hey there’s a wonderful libertarian solution to this sounds good, except it isn’t actually a solution, it’s just rhetoric.

We will NEVER privatize marriage. Maybe in a libertarian society, gay people would be treated with exactly the same liberty as everybody else. But we don’t live in Libertopia, we live in this world, in this reality, with this government.

You want marriage privatization? Convince the existing married straight people. Make it a real, live political option, then we’ll talk. But until that point, don’t expect gay people to give up on the fight for marriage equality in order to support marriage privatization, which is pie in the sky.

[tailfins]

No need to start one, you already have one. The entire forum is your club.

Just to annoy Arlo Guthrie, we are going to found it in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. We will be the people that don't put garbage into one big pile and don't create a nuisance.

[Wind Song]

Just to annoy Arlo Guthrie, we are going to found it in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. We will be the people that don't put garbage into one big pile and don't create a nuisance.

I can see it now. All of you walking into Alice's Restaurant wearing your hand guns and carrying shotguns and rifles.:thumb:

[tailfins]

I can see it now. All of you walking into Alice's Restaurant wearing your hand guns and carrying shotguns and rifles.:thumb:

That settles it guys: If we have a meet-up some day, the address is 40 Main Street, Stockbridge, MA 01262.

[Wind Song]

That settles it guys: If we have a meet-up some day, the address is 40 Main Street, Stockbridge, MA 01262.

I'll be visiting Pacific Islands during your meet up.

[fj1200]

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue. It makes no sense to completely do away with civil marraige. All we need to do is make it equitable. Marriage privatization, (AKA "Getting the government out of the marriage business") isn't the solution. It’s taken a ton of hard work since the 1960s to convince people that gay people deserve rights. We are close to getting marriage equality. Marriage privatization might sound idyllic to libertarians but given that there are real, existing gay people who are being put at a disadvantage now by not having marriage equality.. This hey there’s a wonderful libertarian solution to this sounds good, except it isn’t actually a solution, it’s just rhetoric.

We will NEVER privatize marriage. Maybe in a libertarian society, gay people would be treated with exactly the same liberty as everybody else. But we don’t live in Libertopia, we live in this world, in this reality, with this government.

You want marriage privatization? Convince the existing married straight people. Make it a real, live political option, then we’ll talk. But until that point, don’t expect gay people to give up on the fight for marriage equality in order to support marriage privatization, which is pie in the sky.

Any Libertarian solution is ALWAYS a solution, it's just if the people are strong enough not to demand something from the government or demand the government give them something which is taken away from another citizen.