So gay!!!

[TroutBum]

pay closer attention next time you do your taxes. it is the Feds giving out the breaks, not the state of Utah. and they do it for good reason: young people are the engine of the economy. you should be thankful that your repulsive Utah neighbors are doing the hard work of raising the next generation and ensuring our economic future.

even with the tax breaks, the fertility rate in the USA is only marginally above replacement level. it is far below replacement levels in other places, especially Europe. the lifetime birthrate in Italy is just 1.23 per woman. sounds like you and the Italians have this much in common. maybe you should move there... but hurry, since it looks like they are headed for extinction.

sorry for the interruption. you can return to that other gay stuff you were discussing now.

Excellent interruption, but please don't confuse him with facts.

 

[Deleted member 365]

pay closer attention next time you do your taxes. it is the Feds giving out the breaks, not the state of Utah. and they do it for good reason: young people are the engine of the economy. you should be thankful that your repulsive Utah neighbors are doing the hard work of raising the next generation and ensuring our economic future.

even with the tax breaks, the fertility rate in the USA is only marginally above replacement level. it is far below replacement levels in other places, especially Europe. the lifetime birthrate in Italy is just 1.23 per woman. sounds like you and the Italians have this much in common. maybe you should move there... but hurry, since it looks like they are headed for extinction.

sorry for the interruption. you can return to that other gay stuff you were discussing now.

You're probably talking to the wrong person, but I already feel like this planet is way over-populated. Utah and Salt Lake Counties alone are completely over-saturated. The run on water and terrible air quality are all signs that these urban areas shouldn't expand.

As far as the state and national complaint, many Utahns would scream bloody murder if we passed a MA like state health care program. I was just using Obamacare as an example.

 

[r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t]

You're probably talking to the wrong person, but I already feel like this planet is way over-populated. Utah and Salt Lake Counties alone are completely over-saturated. The run on water and terrible air quality are all signs that these urban areas shouldn't expand.

i forgot to mention how GD expensive it is to raise kids. now there is something for you to look forward to (if you're biologically capable and sufficiently evolved, that is).

 

[Hopper]

..
People who agree with you always seem to exhibit a large amount of intellectual clarity.

1,049 benefits does not mean that 1,000 of them are monetary in nature. For example, the right to be next-of-kin in making medical decisions is not a monetary benefit.

1. That might or might not be true, Eric, but nuthin in the post you quoted would indicate that I thought or said that. If ya had looked at it, and seen the quote marks, or actually clicked on the link, ya would know that I was just quotin some other person, who was fixxin to quote the gay guy.

2. Most any "benefit" can have a monetary aspect to it, even "makin medical decisions," but, either way I'm sure you know that my point was not about the precise number, nature, and extent of the "benefits" someone else counted, and not a point which I am the least bit interested in quibblin about, eh, Eric?

 

[Hopper]

Factual testimony was the bulk of the hearing and that's what can't be challenged...if a reviewing court looks at the case they are stuck with the factual finding...

You state this as an absolute, Kicky, but it aint, and you should know that. Are you just trying to fool someone into accepting the erroneous claim you make, that it?

If the judge had found as a supposed "fact" that "the moon is made of green cheese," the higher courts would by no means be "stuck with" a finding that "can't be challenged."

Furthermore, callin sumthin a "factual" findin don't make it one. If I find, as a "fact," that Ginger is more hotter than Mary Ann, it's still just a matter of opinion, know what I'm sayin?

 

[moevillini]

I'll be the first one to admit I may be wrong. There's a TON of misinformation out there about religions, especially the Mormon church.

That said, it still doesn't change the fact that the majority of those who support Prop 8 are doing so out of morals thrust upon them by their religion. Not just Mormons, of course. Many sects of Christianity have had a long-standing "war" on homosexuality.

interesting though that in Spain, one of the most Catholic (other than Italy) and conservative countries, same sex marriage has been legal since 2005.

Bean would certainly have a tough time if he lived in Spain.

 

[Hopper]

You seem to be focused on the money aspect. Do financial considerations (even as large as those you suggest) trump civil rights considerations? How much extra have school system had to spend to teach heavily pigneted children to the same standard as lightly pigmented children? Should the judges have considered that in Brown vs. Board of Education? Should they have considered the monetary aspects of supporting interracial marriages in Loving vs. Virginia?

As a theoretical matter, no, Eric, cost is absolutely irrelevant. If you had to completely bankrupt the whole country, and thereby forever after relegate it to the status of a third world banana republic, just to make sure that one guy got "equal treatment" then, in theory, you should do that. But, in pratice, all these decisions consider the likely consequences from a pragmatic standpoint too, ya know?

I'm really not addressin the "merits" of this decision. My comments on this subject have only been addressed to the unqualified claim that "Prop 8 is unconstitutional." This judge's ruling will be appealed. In the meantime, hundreds of law school professors and other "legal experts" will offer their personal conclusions about the matter. The gay contingent will repeatedly cite the "experts" which support their conclusions and vilify and slander the ones who don't. The anti-gay marriage advocates will do the same, in reverse. Those experts who aren't politically "commited" to one side or the other will be selectively quoted by the extremes.

All of that "debate" won't really mean nuthin, no matter how much it may serve to convince any one person or persons that prop 8 is/aint "constitutional." Ultimately, it will be the votes of the Supreme Court that decides and the decision will be determinative whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.

 

[billyshelby]

As a theoretical matter, no, Eric, cost is absolutely irrelevant. If you had to completely bankrupt the whole country, and thereby forever after reduce it to the status of a third world banana republic, just to make sure that one guy got "equal treatment" then, in theory, you should do that. But all these decisions consider consequences from a pragmatic standpoint too, ya know?

I'm really not addressin the "merits" of this decision. My comments on this subject have only been addressed to the unqualified claim that "Prop 8 is unconstitutional." This judge's ruling will be appealed. In the meantime, hundreds of law school professors and other "legal experts" will offer their personal conclusions about the matter. The gay contingent will repeatedly cite the "experts" which support their conclusions and vilify and slander the ones who don't. The anti-gay marriage advocates will do the same, in reverse. Those experts who aren't politically "commited" to one side or the other will be selectively quoted by the extremes.

All of that "debate" won't really mean nuthin, no matter how much any one person becomes absolutely convinced that prop 8 is/aint "constitutional." Ultimately, it will be the votes of the Supreme Court that decides and the decision will be determinative whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.

I've been reading other interpretations of this and it does seem there are credible arguments that the Judge's ruling was questionable from a legal standpoint. But that's relative to Prop 8 which is its own animal. There also seem to be questions as to the larger constitutionality of Gay Marriage. Paraphrasing what I heard, and certainly don't understand completely, for it to be a 14th amendment issue, gays would need to be ruled a 'protected class.' Additionally, denial of Gay Marriage would need to demonstrate an 'intent to discriminate.' On its face, that would seem a lock. But in legal terms, it isn't. Unlike the miscegenation statute, certain groups were deprived of the right to marry. Theoretically, gays are not deprived that right, but rather can marry women and thus everyone has the same 'rights.' In legalese, that may be what's referred to as a 'disparate effect,' but not necessarily 'intent to discriminate.'

I may not have explained that well, but the nuts and bolts simply mean the Supreme Court could rule laws forbidding Gay Marriage aren't strictly 'unconstitutional,' however unfair. It would then be kicked down to the states to decide for themselves. There are some that believe it would actually be better to happen in this way because Gay Marriage by popular mandate might not result in the backlash of Roe v. Wade by comparison. I'm not one of those people, but I'm not a law talker and I don't know the rules of that game as well as others. Maybe Kicky can enlighten.

 

[Bronco70]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, so I apologize if I'm rehashing:

In Utah, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Maine, and Arizona, it is legal for first cousins to marry, provided they are both over a certain age (generally 55-65) or one of them is unable to reproduce.

It seems like this allowance flies in the face of the argument that marital status should be reserved for those seeking to propagate the species.

I don't recall anyone making a stink about that.

 

[Hopper]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, so I apologize if I'm rehashing:

In Utah, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Maine, and Arizona, it is legal for first cousins to marry, provided they are both over a certain age (generally 55-65) or one of them is unable to reproduce.

It seems like this allowance flies in the face of the argument that marital status should be reserved for those seeking to propagate the species.

I don't recall anyone making a stink about that.

I think it supports my prior statement that the State's interest in my personal romances and the question of who I'm shackin up with this year is minimal or non-existent. Underlying the State sanctions pertaining to marriage is basically an interest in kids, or potential kids.

Attitudes toward marriage have changed radically since 1960 or so. It used to be that the government took marriage vows literally and would not allow anyone to get a divorce, then remarry, at will. They would force you to stay married unless you had sufficient "grounds" for bein granted a divorce. And, if you were not the one "at fault," then you got all the goodies (house, car, alimony, etc.), so anyone who committed adultery or otherwise created "grounds" for divorce paid dearly.

Not no more. Merely sayin you want a divorce is sufficient grounds for bein entitled to one these here days. A lot of precedents were founded upon attitudes and laws which no longer exist, perhaps making many of those precedents "out-dated."

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Im sorry basic biology offends you. Maybe you can explain how homosexuals are just as important to the continuation of our species as heterosexuals. Thanks.

What does this have to do with two people who are in love being able to legally wed or not?

 

[JJ Rage]

What does this have to do with two people who are in love being able to legally wed or not?

Nothing, but it's the only argument BeanClown can use that won't directly implicate him for his personal prejudices.