#44 BamBam

The gay side isn’t fighting to have heterosexual marriage banned and theirs approved, rather to be included in the approval list. One side fighting against the will of the other side isn’t necessarily bad if the side who currently has “the favor” is wrong in their position. It’s like saying black people fighting for desegregation vs white people fighting for segregation is a fight of wills when it’s really a fight of right vs wrong.

No, but the gay side is fighting for the same benefits that the heterosexual side has. They want the government to mandate the same recognition and legal benefits for gays that they do for heterosexuals. When government commands, by edict, that society provide certain benefits to a particular group of people against their wishes, that’s not as benign as just being “included on the approval list”.

By the way, I’m not a fan of forced desegregation, either.

The eventual goal in the marriage issue should be to remove government from the contract (as it used to be) and let it be a private contract. Religious institutions can have their own “private contract ceremonies” for those that adhere to their religious tenets.

That shouldn’t be the eventual goal, it should be the only goal. By definition, that’s the only solution that satisfies the concept of “equality under the law” (something that gets a lot of lip service, but is only rarely followed).

The gay marriage controversy is a fight over getting the government to impose the will of one of side over the will of the other. It has nothing to do with liberty or freedom and everything to do with government control.

The gay side isn’t fighting to have heterosexual marriage banned and theirs approved, rather to be included in the approval list. One side fighting against the will of the other side isn’t necessarily bad if the side who currently has “the favor” is wrong in their position. It’s like saying black people fighting for desegregation vs white people fighting for segregation is a fight of wills when it’s really a fight of right vs wrong.

The eventual goal in the marriage issue should be to remove government from the contract (as it used to be) and let it be a private contract. Religious institutions can have their own “private contract ceremonies” for those that adhere to their religious tenets.

I was having lunch with a friend, recently returned from Iraq, and we shared an epiphany regarding the usual anti-gay marriage “slippery slope” argument: if gays are allowed to marry, then what’s to stop people from marrying two people, or their hamsters, or whatever. He was telling me about how plural marriage (one man and two, three or four women) is in the Middle East. Funny how they haven’t slipped down the slope into gay marriage over there, isn’t it?

Personally I don’t need a law to tell you how many people you’re allowed to marry, and you can go ahead and marry your pets as soon as they can sign the contract.

Windy:

#39 Marriage between two people is their contract with each other, only, and doesn’t (ethically or Constitutionally) require the assent of their families, churches, neighbors, or government.

#40 As far as I’m concerned, if two guys, or two gals, or even three or more (any mix) want to join into a single household, it’s no skin off my nose, and none of my business. It harms me in no way, whatsoever.

If only marriage really were a simply contract between individuals and the government’s only function was to provide a means of adjudicating breech of contract disputes.

If only the gay marriage crusade were all about getting government out of marriage instead of being about whether gays can tap into the special rights and privileges (and penalties) afforded that special class (only one among many, of course) as legislated by government. But it’s not.

The gay marriage controversy is a fight over getting the government to impose the will of one of side over the will of the other. It has nothing to do with liberty or freedom and everything to do with government control.

As far as I’m concerned, if two guys, or two gals, or even three or more (any mix) want to join into a single household, it’s no skin off my nose, and none of my business. It harms me in no way, whatsoever.

Marriage between two people is their contract with each other, only, and doesn’t (ethically or Constitutionally) require the assent of their families, churches, neighbors, or government. That our society (or anyone within our society) sees it otherwise is twisted, morally. Such a ban is not only unconstitutional, it is just plain rude.

Legal marriage is a legal construct created to bring revenue to government and to deal with the legal matters of division/distribution of property upon divorce/death. Those property matters could be dealt with in other ways, as in a written contract signed and witnessed, without involving government. Religious people can keep their “God Blessed” marriage traditions within their individual churches and leave the rest of us alone to do it our way.

Said contract could also cover matters of privacy concerns, economic matters and healthcare decisions, etc.

0100 Let x+(RND)*1
0110 If x.18 GOTO 0100
0130 PRINT “GUILTY”

(1) The most homophobic demographic is also the least likely to marry, so
(2) let’s codify discrimination against gay people in the hope that it will somehow encourage (or more accurately, not discourage) black fathers to marry the mother of their children.

If the unwed parents rate is already so high in the black community (while gay marriage is generally not legal), she must be assuming that it will be even worse if gay marriage is allowed. That assumes there is a large percentage of black fathers out there who would say “I WOULD marry the mother of my out-of-wedlock child but then I’d be kind of like a gay person so screw that.” Goofy.

Sorry. Couldn’t leave it.

#29 Bob

I have no idea if that would actually produce those results… but I expect the device is sufficiently poorly designed that it could easily be gamed by law enforcement to give erroneously high results.

Don’t be silly. Cops don’t try to make people look guilty when they’re not. Cops are the good guys.

Haha. Just kidding.

It could be that one count on the A/D corresponds to 0.0143455 BAC. So I suspect the resolution could be much worse than 0.1 but you wouldn’t know it as the display could show 10 digits of accuracy but not state the +/- error.

If he’s telling the truth, we all deserve to be sodomized for allowing our government to get this out of control.

It shames me that this is even plausible.