proposition 8 Options

[hi-C]

How about marriage being a "union"? If you can't get the term right, why should you be able to get married?

[illriginal]

Right because gays are not affiliated with religion (other than gay priests and shit), so they're dealt by the state.

lol @ marriage license.. man you guys really fall for that bullshit? That just so you can claim your taxes, f*ck a license.


An atheist or people of today call that unity, "marriage". Literally speaking, atheists and homosexuals are not getting "married" as that is a part of the religious "culture". Meaning it is not a culture of a people, rather the culture of religious people.

[hi-C]

You know that if you don't file for a marriage license, your marriage isn't formally recognized right?

[illriginal]

You know that if you don't file for a marriage license, your marriage isn't formally recognized right?

I didn't even get married in the U.S.

And f*ck a U.S. law tryin to get in the way of my religious belief.. are you kiddin me? LOL Man made laws > religious law? AHA...

Man made laws can't touch the Law of Allah and what Allah has willed.

[kryogenix]

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?
But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

I'm talking about the homosexuals that are suing churches that refuse to marry them, like the lesbians that sued that methodist group in NJ.

I don't consider marriage a civil institution (like I said, I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage whatsoever), but for the sake of argument, let's say I do. If marriage is now a legal contract, the government has the power to decide who can and cannot participate. That means, it would be within the scope of the government's power to decide that homosexuals cannot marry, especially if this decision is arrived at through democratic means, right?

We need to move towards a more constitutional form of government. That way, gays are free to pretend to themselves that they are married, and I am free to ignore them.

[hi-C]

I see what you're saying, but the answer is no, not if it (unjustly) puts the rights of one group above those of another group, and especially not if precedent has been set (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Ed; Loving v. Virginia).

[kryogenix]

I see what you're saying, but the answer is no, not if it (unjustly) puts the rights of one group above those of another group, and especially not if precedent has been set (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Ed; Loving v. Virginia).

Interesting you bring up Loving v. Virginia, yet you fail to mention that decision was upheld by Baker v. Nelson, which did not allow same sex marriage.

Selective memory huh?

[hi-C]

It's not selective memory because, honestly, I hadn't heard of Baker v. Nelson before, but, from what I've gleaned from googling, it seems decidedly at odds with the two rulings I stated previously. But then, I'm biased; I don't think there's a difference between racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender and sexuality. I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is, but with the trend going the way it is, it doesn't seem like it'll be precedent for much longer.

[illriginal]

I forgot to mention in regards to the marriage license. I didn't want you to think I was playin some arrogant, ignorant ass.. but look up the Amish. They don't deal with marriage licenses.

Typically, a marriage license is to prove that you're of legal age or have consent to marriage, so that you don't marry a 2nd spouse under the current marriage, and also for the sake of taxes/benefits.

Otherwise... a marriage license is just a joke.

[hi-C]

As much as the Amish may appear to be outside of the mainstream, they apply for marriage licenses, they just don't need an officiant. In that case, it's called a self-uniting marriage. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821194-85.stm

And, apparently, they pay taxes, too.

[kryogenix]

It's not selective memory because, honestly, I hadn't heard of Baker v. Nelson before, but, from what I've gleaned from googling, it seems decidedly at odds with the two rulings I stated previously. But then, I'm biased; I don't think there's a difference between racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender and sexuality. I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is, but with the trend going the way it is, it doesn't seem like it'll be precedent for much longer.

So judicial precedent is only a valid argument when that precedent supports your views huh. How convenient.

Indeed, your bias is apparent. You can't have it both ways.

[hi-C]

So judicial precedent is only a valid argument when that precedent supports your views huh. How convenient.

Indeed, your bias is apparent. You can't have it both ways.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional.

[illriginal]

As much as the Amish may appear to be outside of the mainstream, they apply for marriage licenses, they just don't need an officiant. In that case, it's called a self-uniting marriage. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821194-85.stm

And, apparently, they pay taxes, too.

Property tax, ya... they have to pay for the large piece of land. The IRS is upset because they've been trying to get the Amish to pay for Social Security, state taxes, and something else. But they don't have to because they don't exist outside of their own community. They don't use anything from the state other than the land they're on, which they respectfully pay their taxes on. As for Social Security, majority if not all Amish are pretty much self sufficient... or what Government calls, "self employed"

The reason why they don't need a marriage license is because it is their community who gives the yay or nay. The Amish don't depend on man made laws for civility, they depend on their religious laws.

In fact, I'm amazed that the Christians have not demanded the state to stay out of religious affairs.. since religion is not allowed to interfere with Government or state, it should be vica versa.

[kryogenix]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional.

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

[hi-C]

Property tax, ya... they have to pay for the large piece of land.

The reason why they don't need a marriage license is because it is their community who gives the yay or nay. The Amish don't depend on man made laws for civility, they depend on their religious laws.

But they do get marriage licenses. Like with the state of Pennsylvania:

To be recognized as legal by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, marriages must be performed under a valid marriage license duly issued by a Clerk of Orphans’ Court MUST BE OFFICIATED by one of the following individuals specifically recognized under PA law as authorized to officiate, to wit:

Sec. 1503. Persons qualified to solemnize marriages.

(a) General rule. The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons that produce a marriage license issued under this part:

1. A justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth.
2. A former or retired justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth who is serving as a senior judge or a senior district justice as provided or prescribed by law.
3. An active or senior judge or full-time magistrate of the District Courts of the United States for the Eastern, Middle or Western District of Pennsylvania.
4. An active or senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who is a resident of this Commonwealth.
5. A mayor of any city or borough of this Commonwealth.
6. A minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.

(b) Religious organizations. Every religious society, religious institution or religious organization in this Commonwealth may join persons together in marriage when at least one of the persons is a member of the society, institution or organization, according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization. (Amish & Quakers if you are a member)

© Marriage license needed to officiate. No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.

http://www.washingtoncourts.us/pages/roMarriageLicenses.aspx
http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view...Nav=|9605|9658|

And from the state of Indiana:

IC 31-11-4-1
Marriage license required to marry
Sec. 1. Before two (2) individuals may marry each other, the individuals must obtain a marriage license under this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. [...]

IC 31-11-4-4
Application; sexually transmitted diseases acknowledgment; religious objections
Sec. 4. (a) An application for a marriage license must be written and verified. The application must contain the following information concerning each of the applicants:
(1) Full name.
(2) Birthplace.
(3) Residence.
(4) Age.
(5) Names of dependent children.
(6) Full name, including the maiden name of a mother, last known residence, and, if known, the place of birth of:
(A) the birth parents of the applicant if the applicant is not adopted; or
(B) the adoptive parents of the applicant if the applicant is adopted.
(7) A statement of facts necessary to determine whether any legal impediment to the proposed marriage exists.
(8) Except as provided in subsection (e), an acknowledgment that both applicants must sign, affirming that the applicants have received the information described in section 5 of this chapter, including a list of test sites for the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). The

acknowledgment required by this subdivision must be in the following form:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I acknowledge that I have received information regarding dangerous communicable diseases that are sexually transmitted and a list of test sites for the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).
__________________________ ____________
Signature of Applicant Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature of Applicant Date
(b) The clerk of the circuit court shall record the application, including the license and certificate of marriage, in a book provided for that purpose. This book is a public record.
© The state department of health shall develop uniform forms for applications for marriage licenses. The state department of health shall furnish these forms to the circuit court clerks. The state department of health may periodically revise these forms.
(d) The state department of health shall require that the record of marriage form developed under subsection © must include each applicant's Social Security number. Any Social Security numbers collected on the record of marriage form shall be kept confidential and used only to carry out the purposes of the Title IV-D program. A person who knowingly or intentionally violates confidentiality regarding an applicant's Social Security numbers as described in this subsection commits a Class A infraction.
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a person who objects on religious grounds is not required to:
(1) verify the application under subsection (a) by oath or affirmation; or
(2) sign the acknowledgment described in subsection (a)(8).
However, before the clerk of the circuit court may issue a marriage license to a member of the Old Amish Mennonite church, the bishop of that member must sign a statement that the information in the application is true.
(f) If a person objects on religious grounds to:
(1) verifying the application under subsection (a) by oath or affirmation; or
(2) signing the acknowledgment described in subsection (a)(8);
the clerk of the circuit court shall indicate that fact on the application for a marriage license.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.213-1999, SEC.8; P.L.86-2002, SEC.5.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch4.html

[illriginal]

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

Democratic states tend to lean more towards pro-gay / pro-choice. So ya, some states will legalize gay marriage while the republican or at least conservative states will not. Which isn't good because this gay marriage thing is part of the states splitting up. Conservatives do not want to be part of a nation that accepts homosexuality, but not just that of course. So because of these types of things pile up, they're in process of breaking away. Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

[illriginal]

But they do get marriage licenses. Like with the state of Pennsylvania:
http://www.washingtoncourts.us/pages/roMarriageLicenses.aspx
http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view...Nav=|9605|9658|

And from the state of Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch4.html

Right the commonwealth, meaning to work outside of the community and for the state. This is applying to Amish people who wish to get married outside of their community and gain benefits from their state. In Amish belief they don't believe in man made laws or anything outside of their religious / spiritual culture.

They are not "forced" by law to obtain a marriage license as so long as they stay within their community. Eh.. I don't think you're understanding anything I've said.

[hi-C]

OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void?

Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry.

But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade.

As long as Baker stands, then yes, the majority of my argument is null and void.

[hi-C]

Eh.. I don't think you're understanding anything I've said.

The same could be said of you. But whatevs.

[kryogenix]

As long as Baker stands, then yes, the majority of my argument is null and void.

OK, that's all I needed to know.

[mipadi]

Look up Montana and Texas... they're filing for sovereignty and have already started state industries for their states only.

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

[kryogenix]

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Actually, I think Montana is forced to secede if the right to bear arms is abolished, based on the terms agreed upon when Montana joined the union.

But we're going on a tangent.

[illriginal]

Buuuullllllsshhiiittttt. The governor of Texas half-seriously suggested that Texas should secede, but it's not actually doing it (and I doubt Montana is, either). States can't "file for sovereignty" because states can't secede. We fought a war over this. Look it up, I think it's referred to in the US as the "Civil War".

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Bullshit my dick, you ho ass trick:

haha I'm moving to Montana while you suffer Obama's **** ****.

Over 20 states have already started their state industries which will be sovereign from the "Union". Even oil the industries that our Government has refused to reopen like a bunch of a flaming f****ts that they are, with their green this and green that . So let Obama damage the Constitution some more.. he's going to have a revolutionary war at the front step of the White House

[mipadi]

Bullshit?

States can't secede? HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".

[illriginal]

Oh, they can secede -- until the government, you know, sends the military to force them back into the Union.

At any rate, you don't "file for sovereignty".

It doesn't matter because the Military is backing up America's citizens, not the Government. There's so many things not being reported (duh... the revolution will not be televised) that many Americans aren't even aware as to what's coming.