lewmonst 0 #1 October 30, 2008 NO on 8 Don't discriminate.http://www.exitshot.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #2 October 30, 2008 Quote NO on 8 Don't discriminate. Agreed, and i'm not even a CalifreakianYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #3 October 30, 2008 Does it really take two threads to make a statement on something which the rest of the world and most likely allot of people in your own country haven't got a clue what you are talking about. If you want to debate a subject at least put a link in as to what the hell you're talking about. Otherwise it makes as much sense as saying. No to 299.2! WTF?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpsteve 0 #4 October 30, 2008 Not exactly true Rad, Prop 8 has gotten a ton of press so many people outside of California (I am east coast) know about it. Given it is election time his title "NO on prop 8 (California) makes it 100% clear what the thread is about. Agreed....no on 8. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 October 30, 2008 QuoteNO on 8 Don't discriminate. I'm going to stir the pot for stirring sake: If a gay man can't marry another man, and a gay woman can't marry a women, what right do they not have that a straight man or woman have? You'll say, "Well a gay man can't get married." I can say, "Yes he can. He can marry a woman." You'll say, "But he can't get married to another man." I can then reply, "Neither can a straight man." One doesn't have privilege over the other -- in a way. I don't live there, so my vote doesn't matter...I'm just stirring the pot. What if the argument were that simple for some?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #7 October 30, 2008 QuoteDoes it really take two threads to make a statement on something which the rest of the world and most likely allot of people in your own country haven't got a clue what you are talking about. If you want to debate a subject at least put a link in as to what the hell you're talking about. Otherwise it makes as much sense as saying. No to 299.2! WTF? Different proposition This one is about same sex marriageYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #8 October 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteNO on 8 Don't discriminate. I'm going to stir the pot for stirring sake: If a gay man can't marry another man, and a gay woman can't marry a women, what right do they not have that a straight man or woman have? You'll say, "Well a gay man can't get married." I can say, "Yes he can. He can marry a woman." You'll say, "But he can't get married to another man." I can then reply, "Neither can a straight man." One doesn't have privilege over the other -- in a way. I don't live there, so my vote doesn't matter...I'm just stirring the pot. What if the argument were that simple for some?None of what you typed has anything to do with the prop. It's not about letting a gay man marry. it's about allowing same sex marriage, so that their partners are atributed the same rights as hetro-marriages are. as is stands you can be with a life partner for 50 years (in same sex relationship) and if you die your partner has no rights to anything. they cant even visit you in hospital if it's "family only"You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #9 October 30, 2008 QuoteYou'll say, "Well a gay man can't get married." I can say, "Yes he can. He can marry a woman." You'll say, "But he can't get married to another man." I can then reply, "Neither can a straight man." One doesn't have privilege over the other -- in a way. The straight man can marry someone he wants to marry, the gay man (or woman) can't. It's that simple. QuoteWhat if the argument were that simple for some? Then they'd be wrong.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 October 30, 2008 I am personally voting no on it. But for some true equality would require federal intervention. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders are controlled by federal statute. These contril disbursement of retirement accounts. For homosexual relationships there are serious issues because they aren't authorized for these relationships. Yes, I am discussing what happens when gays divorce. It is difficult to have ewuality in marriage when there is inequality in divorce. Just something to think about My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #11 October 30, 2008 I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage. A limitation on the gender or quantity of spouses is, in my mind, a "law respecting an establishment of religion or (and) prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I'm also not so disillusioned as to think our government will get their grubby hands out of such a divisive piece of social engineering. That being the case, I'm in support of laws that recognize homosexual couples as having exactly the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #12 October 30, 2008 Thanks, So are Gay marriages currently marriages or are they Civil Partnerships like here in the UK? Do they confer the same married rights as straight couples and what about couples who have already married in California? Will their marriages be annuled? Also if they have been claiming any financial advantages for being married will they be reimbursed? Load of questions on this one. Also if a married couple don't then have their marriage recognised if this bill goes through then what if one of them dies without a will? Who will get the estate, the person they married or the family NOK?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #13 October 30, 2008 Marriage - the idea of lifetime rights - is an out-dated concept. People don't want to give a carte blanche set of rights to another person on a permanent basis. It is handing someone the knife that may cut your throat at their whim, at any future date. Things have changed. There are many couples who are living together, but are not married (I believe that is the arrangement for many people on this site, as everywhere.) Most people have spent some time in their 20s in this arrangement. That is the situation and the law needs to address it. Many rights are revocable. A power-of-attorney. Access to financial or medical information. We already select rights. Any unmarried couples should be able to give certain revocable rights to others. Right now, in Florida, unmarried same-sex partners are given rights that unmarried different-sex partners do not have. Companies allow same-sex couples to give medical plan coverage to their SO, just on their signature on a form. My son and his live-in g/f do not have the same option. Different-sex couples are being discriminated against. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 79 #14 October 30, 2008 QuoteRight now, in Florida, unmarried same-sex partners are given rights that unmarried different-sex partners do not have. Companies allow same-sex couples to give medical plan coverage to their SO, just on their signature on a form. My son and his live-in g/f do not have the same option. Different-sex couples are being discriminated against. But that is only because same sex couples aren't allowed to marry. If they were given the right to marry like different sex couples, there would be no need for a law allowing them special rights. I agree with you that marriage is an out dated concept and I agree with others that the government should stay out of the marriage business. But, as long as it exists and the government accepts it, they should not be able to choose who can marry whom. As long as all parties involved are legally allowed to enter into a binding contract (marriage), then the government should have no say in it.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #15 October 30, 2008 QuoteProp 8 has gotten a ton of press so many people outside of California (I am east coast) know about it. Surely you've then also heard of Prop 2 (Florida) and Prop 102 (Arizona). I wish I'd saved the flyer I received in the mail insisting I vote YES on Prop 2. It was really hilarious. It assured me it was OK because domestic partnerships would still be allowed for the "sole reason they are inferior to a real marriage" or something like that. As a sidenote, it's particularly interesting being a registered Independent and seeing the difference in mailers I receive than my hunny, a registered Republican. I know McCain's campaign is totally negative and we just can't stand that, but I must receive 10 negative flyers about McCain from the Obama campaign to every one I receive the other way around. Weird. OTOH, Obama campaigners are the only ones who've reached out and wanted to talk, calling me on my cell phone at 9 p.m. It makes me feel special. No one else ever phones at that hour wanting to sit up and chat. Anywho, I'm also for NO on Props 8, 2 & 102. I wish I had the life of a "YES"er campaigner as they clearly have no more important concerns in this election.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #16 October 30, 2008 Too right Lew. I can't believe in this day and age, that this sort of thing is an issue anymore. When are we as humans going to grow up?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #17 October 30, 2008 QuoteI don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage. I like the way you're thinking.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #18 October 30, 2008 >I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage. Agreed. Let the government hand out civil unions and let churches have the wedding ceremonies however they like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 October 30, 2008 Quote I know McCain's campaign is totally negative and we just can't stand that, but I must receive 10 negative flyers about McCain from the Obama campaign to every one I receive the other way around. Weird. That's the difference in funding. The ones attacking Obama are probably paid for by a third party as well. Quote OTOH, Obama campaigners are the only ones who've reached out and wanted to talk, calling me on my cell phone at 9 p.m. It makes me feel special. No one else ever phones at that hour wanting to sit up and chat. I don't think I'd be so kind to someone calling my cell phone, though at least for me 9pm is not the imposition it would be on others. 9am - I'd be loading the gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 October 30, 2008 QuoteThanks, So are Gay marriages currently marriages or are they Civil Partnerships like here in the UK? Do they confer the same married rights as straight couples and what about couples who have already married in California? Will their marriages be annuled? Also if they have been claiming any financial advantages for being married will they be reimbursed? Load of questions on this one. Also if a married couple don't then have their marriage recognised if this bill goes through then what if one of them dies without a will? Who will get the estate, the person they married or the family NOK? The California Supreme Court struck down the ban early this year, and it has been ruled that any marriages happening since will stand, even if prop 8 passes. Apparently the folks behind it were again too sloppy with their writing, and AG Jerry Brown is far smarter than they are. He even got the title on the initiative to read: "Prop 8 - eliminates right of same self couples to marry" over the desired "defense of marriage" description. Brilliant. I believe all state rights are confirmed on gay marriages, but federal ones remain non existent. Most of the financial advantages are federal in origin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #21 October 30, 2008 QuoteI believe all state rights are confirmed on gay marriages, but federal ones remain non existent. Most of the financial advantages are federal in origin. So, will same sex married couples have to file federal taxes as married? I really think that the Feds would eliminate the marriage penalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 October 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteI believe all state rights are confirmed on gay marriages, but federal ones remain non existent. Most of the financial advantages are federal in origin. So, will same sex married couples have to file federal taxes as married? I really think that the Feds would eliminate the marriage penalty. Currently they may not file as married. And yes, if we're thinking about the cliche (gays essentially being hotter Jews with money), they would fall into the marriage penalty. However, there are many other tax advantages to married couples - most notably the 250k times 2 capital gains exclusion on home sales. At death, the step up in cost basis for homes and investments. For someone in SF, these far exceed the minor marriage tax bracket penalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #23 October 30, 2008 Quote That's the difference in funding. I understand that. Quote I don't think I'd be so kind to someone calling my cell phone, though at least for me 9pm is not the imposition it would be on others. 9am - I'd be loading the gun. Right! I'm in bed between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m. EST. I'm up at 4:30 a.m. As for my cell phone, I don't get it. I'm on the cell "do not call" registry. We haven't had a landline for six years. But, I'm always kind to telemarketers. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 October 30, 2008 Quote As for my cell phone, I don't get it. I'm on the cell "do not call" registry. There is a fat exemption for political efforts on the DNC registries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #25 October 30, 2008 I figured that. But, I haven't yet been called by anyone representing the McCain campaign.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
