General Music Chat

The state of CA's social union laws have no bearing on federal policies, though, so perhaps it is way past time to handle this at the federal level.

Still...from Wiki:

"A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most but not all of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses."

Not all the same rights, sans. It still is not equal, by law or by definition.

A married person has the right to a dead spouse's retirement, SSI, etc.

Looks to me as if, yes, someone IS being denied equal rights, & all due to a simple term, & for what purpose? To punish them for being?

We got past that with the female vote, the '64 act concerning race, so what makes this so different?

A WORD?!?!?!?!

Sounds more like an excuse to exclude, to me, & that's why the SC needs to intervene on the behalf of our fellow citizens. And yes, that may require a change in the LEGAL definition of the word, 'marriage.'

Hey, legal terms have little bearing on daily use of those very same words. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'is' is, or 'sexual union,' eh?

Philby, the only thing that pisses me off about your whole friggin argument is YOU SAID that you ARE NOT AS QUALIFIED as any SUPREME court judge.

These people are no better than you or are more qualified, they are appointed and may not have half the common sense YOU DO.

WHY THE FU CK would you think these people have any more value to OUR COUNTRY THAN YOU DO? We are not a DEMOCRACY , we are A REPUBLIC set up to prevent irrational mob rule. The president is of no importance at all ,nor senator, nor judge, without your grace.

Sorry to take this off thread WE own the govt, NOT , NOT , the other way around.

I keep hearing that phrase - "the sanctity of marriage."

By definition, we're talking "holiness." So a loving union between any two ppl doesn't constitute a "holy union?" They MUST be male & female?

Personally, I think we, each of us, determine whether our union is indeed "holy," not by whether we're homo- or hetero-sexual, but by our ATTITUDE toward that union. How we handle ourselves within that union. How we treat our chosen mate. Whether we stray from it or not. How we love, more than who. LOVE is what makes the union holy, & nothing else, imho.


If that is the case, then, as long as both partners are indeed human, it really shouldn't matter one way or the other WHAT sex the two people may be, be it male, female, hermaphrodite, or transexual, or even asexual, as long as love is involved, it is a "holy union."

The modern conservative's strict definition of marriage even excludes those other ppl of mixed sex that GOD HIMSELF CREATED! How cruel! Do you think that is what your god means by the sanctity of a marital union? Do you believe that he created those ppl to never love, to never enjoy any true life-long union? Or that it would be unholy for them to do so?

I would think that those who claim that "God is love," would agree with my assertion, & my definition of a 'holy marriage,' but they do not, & that really confuses me.

There was a time that ppl actually tried to hold other races down by claiming that they weren't human, & therefore, anything done with them was perfectly alright, because, as 'other than humans,' they shouldn't have the same rights as ppl do.

This looks suspiciously similar, to me, this claiming of the sanctity of marriage, & using such descriptions to keep others from having equal rights. I cannot abide such an attitude from my gov't in this "land of the free," where we're all supposed to be equal.

When it comes to legality of issues, Glen, I do not consider myself qualified...but like everyone else in the world, I consider myself completely qualified in issues of morality...LOL

It seems you are right now. When it comes to morality thats a whole 'nother can of worms. Would you shoot BAMBI to to feed your family or wouldn't you?
See how easy it is to twist things.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe the word marriage was used in the constitution, this was left to the powers in charge of separation of church and state. That would be GOD.
Lets see if these judges are more qualified.

Well, there's obviously a difference between what the Bible says a marriage is, & what the state says it is.

Solomon had HOW many wives? I don't remember the number exactly, but it was well over a hundred!

I believe this is an argument that is never going to end. For me if two guys or two gals or two whatevers decide to get married it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON ME. I could CARE LESS. Marriage between heterosexuals is still intact regardless of who else can get married. Two people should be allowed to get married and have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. In my line of work I have done jobs for gay couples, both men and women. What they do in the privacy of their home is irrelevant to me. If they are married it is irrelevant to me also. Every man and every woman deserves the exact same rights as every other man or woman. If you happen to not believe in same sex marriage then DON'T GO TO ANY SAME SEX MARRIAGE CEREMONIES. If it goes against your religious views then that's fine. If you believe that homosexuality is a perversion that's fine. It is not the governemnt's job to pass laws that by nature are discriminatory against anybody for any reason. HAVING LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE DOES NOT DETRACT FROM OUR LIFE IN ANY SHAPE, FORM, OR MATTER. In the grand scheme of things it is IRRELEVANT.

Very impressive Bob.

My only problem is that there should be some provision that the gay couple actually lives together and shares expenses. If not, you could have two guys that are not a couple use "marriage" to obtain benefits reserved for those who actually are married.

Poor Solomon.

Very impressive Bob.

My only problem is that there should be some provision that the gay couple actually lives together and shares expenses. If not, you could have two guys that are not a couple use "marriage" to obtain benefits reserved for those who actually are married.

Gee...didn't they make a movie about that?

Not sure Phil, I don't watch Lifetime or Hallmark. Please "Phil" us in.

No no no! It was some major release, with Adam Sandler & that UPS guy from the King Of Queens, or whatever that show is. "Harry & Larry" or something...I dunno. I didn't see it. I just saw the ads for it.

It isn't that complicated to me. It is not what it appears to be. None of what is going on in their government is what it appears to be. It is the ramping up of spiritual warfare. It is the perverted demanding that we accept their perversion as normal. And that will open the door to persecution of all who do believe in the scriptures.
Declare homosexuality on par with marriage, then their next demand will be to remove scriptural condemnation of their life style from the Bible because it will be deemed a hate crime to quote the scriptures that call homosexuality the perversion that it is. The fat sheep have muddied the waters so the sheep can not drink. Otherwise it would be clear.

They must destroy the Bible. It is politically incorrect and teaches deplorable concepts like belief in God and Jesus. God and the belief in Him must be destroyed for perversion to hold its head high and truly roam free. This is not a fight about equality, they already have that. This is about making those who believe in God reject the scriptures and accept their way of life. They seek approval and they want to force the Godly to back down and socially accept their lifestyle.

Sounds like a plan to me. Now who is big enough to do the job? The enemy of socialism / communism / ungodliness is Godliness.

Fudge packers and carpet cleaners unite!! As long as there is a living God someone somewhere will be thinking homosexuality is a perversion, thus committing a thought crime. Those who believe in God must be destroyed. Yup. I'm one of them.

Storm clouds are brewing on the horizon. The latter rain is about to fall. It will be a deluge. Already I see the forehead of the beast rising from the sea. Just as the corporate body of Christ rose to form the church, the corporate body of Satan is forming to destroy it.

*just sadly shakes his head*

To my knowledge, SG, Jesus never spoke on the subject of homosexuality.

What HE spoke of was acceptance & love, not condemnation of others. You know, the "New Covenant."

Are the scriptures that fragile? Is the word of god so weak? Do you really think that all of this is just some sort of conspiracy against christianity itself?

Are we talking New or Old Testament, here? I've yet to see anyone who point to the new, & say that this is condemned. What HAS been condemned in the new? Spell it out to me so that I may understand.

Wasting your time Phil. Many of these thumpers prefer the angry, turn- people-to-pillars-of-salt, city-destroying God of the Old Testament. What they sadly don't realize is that this country was founded to be free of their types. Marriage is a legal institution and has little to nothing to do with religion.