The dominos keep on teetering and toplling

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by chelloveck, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Marriage inequality in the USA is, step by step, becoming recognised as being as unjustifiable as slavery, denial of women's suffrage; and racial discrimination were, back in the day when abolitionists, suffragettes and African Americans were fighting for their equality rights and freedoms.

    Australia unfortunately presently has a former catholic seminarian as Prime Minister, and refuses parliament a conscience vote on marriage, Australian LGBT folk will have to cool their heels a little longer.

    The Dominoes Are Falling: Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional |
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
    tulianr and cjsloane like this.
  2. Mike

    Mike Ol' Army Sergeant Monkey

    Marriage inequality? Marriage, for as long as it has been called marriage, whether back in the Roman days, druidian days, whenever, has never been between two of the same gender. I agree with giving equal rights as far as insurance, home ownership, things such as that, but Marriage is NOT between gay couples. But the aggressive "You have to support me or we will shut you down with lawsuits or protests" ideology of the gay community is asinine. Whats next, marriage for lovers of German Shepherds, quarter horses?
  3. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator


    Civil unions are fine with me, with all the same "benefits" as marriage is legally recognized.....
    I respect an individuals right to do whatever they want to do, within the norms of society. But marriage is between a man and a woman.

    I for one am tired of the continual drum beat of the LGBT community to have marriage acknowledge for their partnerships.... Why is it necessary to have their lifestyle jammed down societies throat. To equate the marriage issue to slavery, racial discrimination and so on.... is just B.S.
  4. Mike

    Mike Ol' Army Sergeant Monkey

    I concur, completely.
    swampbilly likes this.
  5. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    There was a time in some places in America that anti-miscegenation laws prevented interracial marriage....marriage being the sacred institution of not only wedlock between a man and a woman, but also the wedlock of a man and a woman of the same race. Anti-miscegenation laws have only just been declared unconstitutional within living memory (1967) with the Loving_v._Virginia decision.( ). Eventually, the same fate awaits anti-LGBT marriage laws. The 14th Amendment will eventually trump the 10th Amendment.

    1967 Repeal of anti-miscegenation laws over time
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967

    AmeriNZ Blog: Visualising equality


    It is most probable that the progress of LGBT marriage equality will follow the same general pattern as happened with the repeal of anti-miscegenation legislation...most likely with the "bible belt" States being the last to change.
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2014
    tulianr and swampbilly like this.
  6. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    chelloveck likes this.
  7. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    The divorce lawyers are already looking at new Bentleys and mansions in Malibu!!
    tulianr, cjsloane and Yard Dart like this.
  8. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    If you pick the "Right One" the first time, there is No Need for a Second.... or a Divorce Lawdog...... Marriage is the MOST Important Choice, one can make in their Life, Yet it is, Likely, the least Researched Choice, many make in their lives.... ..... YMMV.....
    Mike, tulianr, gunbunny and 2 others like this.
  9. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    If divorce lawyers don't already have Bentleys and mansions in Malibu (or wherever) consequent to heterosexual divorce work, then one would have to speculate that they'd be pretty p!$$ poor divorce lawyers, if that is their specialty. Bear in mind that lawyers have always dealt with the divorce of homosexuals...just that their gay clients were more often in the closet at the time of marriage breakup. Even in the case of the generally inferior civil union arrangement, lawyers will still be involved in relationship estrangements when it comes to communal property disposition and child custody and care arrangements.

    If LGBT folk wish to take the risk of impoverishment by divorce lawyer that heterosexuals take, then that is the price of equality and of the freedom to exercise the option of marriage. Being denied the option to be married, is a denial of the same liberty that heterosexuals enjoy to choose, with all the benefits, privileges, commitments, responsibilities, and risks that are attendant with marriage.

    You are quite right Bruce, for those contemplating a marriage. It is of course not an issue for those who are happy to remain spinsters and bachelors, and for whom the notion of marriage is not even a blip on their radar.

    You have put your finger on the old aphorism..."Marry in haste (without due diligence and careful consideration) and repent at leisure." However, that is only half of the equation...oneself also has to be the "right one", prepared to do the necessary relationship maintenance stuff to keep the relationship healthy, vital, and sustainable. It is just as true for LGBT folk as it is for heterosexual folk.
    tulianr likes this.
  10. Airtime

    Airtime Monkey+++

    Oh, I had to research a lot. ;-) Research was actually rather enjoyable most of the time. It did require a substantial R&D budget but a lot of it could go on the books and written off as entertainment, not client entertainment mind you. Must admit... I do look back upon some of that experimental research, research and development with some fond memories and honestly only a few not so fond. The research subjects might have some differing test results but I don't think many are negative data points, just disappointed headcount allocations for additional research didn't materialize. Of course a good amount of the project discontinuation was the consequent of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEAs) as part of all that.

    Results... I finally figured out the skills sets of an elementary school teacher were prerequisitional for relational part tolerances for long term contract viability and warranty cost elimination. I wasn't married until late 30s and been going strong for 18 years.

    tulianr, chelloveck, BTPost and 2 others like this.
  11. Airtime

    Airtime Monkey+++

    On a different note...

    This whole thing marriage thing should be completely irrelevant to the federal government and with just one significant exception, inheritance in the event of no will/contract, should be completely irrelevant to state and local government. The fact that government laws and regulations require the government to deal with all this is proof positive that government is way way too involved in the day to day lives of people. Government should be out of the marriage license business, the marriage dissolution business, the marriage conflict resolution business, spousal rights business, they should be out of all of it! Let churches deal with the whole concept of marriage and let them then use basic contract law to deal with the partnership aspects, the same law that would deal with two gals opening a hardware store. (sorry ;-)

    tulianr and Minuteman like this.
  12. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    And @chelloveck , @Dunerunner was quite correct. It is NEW Bentley's and mansions to be picked out. The current ones are so last year's model....;)
  13. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I doubt that is ever likely to happen for as long as governments give preferential treatment to married couples over unmarried couples, whether heterosexual, or LGBT.

    The notion that churches get a monopoly on who may and may not be married, what rights the respective spouses may have, and whether a marriage may be terminated at the discretion of the matrimonial pair is an appalling suggestion. Within the Abrahamic monotheistic, and many other faith traditions....women would do extremely badly out of that arrangement. Having the various churches, mosques, temples, synagogues administer the whole damned shebang using canon and sharia law would an unmitigated disaster. Clerics and their holy scriptures cause enough domestic and conjugal misery as it is.

    Let marriage be a secular enterprise with the contractual parties having the option of deciding how the marriage is solemnised. The government issues the marriage license and registers the marriage...and the marriage is solemnised by an authorised celebrant, be they a civil celebrant or a religious celebrant. However, religious celebrants and religious institutions should be exempt from solemnising a marriage that is contrary to their faith's doctrinal convictions and traditions.

    The issue is not so much where the wedding ceremony is held, and who officiates at it...but whether or not the sexual preferences of the couple are at all relevant to the cultural practice of marriage. The irony is that a bisexual male, and a bisexual female may legally be married together, and yet have same sex polyamorous relations with others outside of that relationship, but a same sex LGT couple committed to a monogomous relationship with each other cannot be legally married in many jurisdictions. Go figure?
    tulianr likes this.
  14. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    If gay couples want to be united by a civil magistrate or even some apostate "church" and be recognized by employers and by the govt, be it local, state or federal, then I say more power to them. I have no objections to it.
    But marriage is ordained by God, it is and always has been the domain of the church. You make your vows not to each other but before and to God. So for mostly, nonreligious people to demand the "right" to be married is laughable.
    The state has no business in the marriage business. This only came about during early part of the last century. To combat diseases and birth defects the state started demanding proof of fitness and that you were not too closely related in order to be "officially" wed. Remember having to take a blood test to get a marriage license?
    This nonsense about "gay rights" has nothing to do with "rights" it is about a minority trying to intimidate and force the majority to give them special status and recognition.
    Sapper John and Yard Dart like this.
  15. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    "God" means too many different things to too many different people to have "God" ordain anything, in my opinion. I'm married, in my eyes, the eyes of my spouse and my children, and even in the eyes of the government; but my marriage has nothing to do with any church.

    My first marriage was in a church, and performed by a minister, and that marriage went sooo well. This marriage was performed outside, in a park, in the company of my friends and family, and not a minister in sight. After nearly two decades, I think this one is going to stick.

    I don't consider someone married in a church to be any more (or less) married than I am; and I don't think that same sex couples being married makes me any less married. No skin off of my nose.

    I don't need a god to bless what for me is a decision between two consenting adults; a decision that has legal and social implications, but, for me, no religious ones.
    chelloveck and mysterymet like this.
  16. Airtime

    Airtime Monkey+++

    Huh?? Did you miss the first and last sentences of my post? Maybe the significant implications of those were too obscue. If so I can try again.
    Minuteman likes this.
  17. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    That is the definition of a civil union, call it marriage if you like, and I have no problem with it. But to codify the "right" for anyone to be "married" opens the door to many unforeseen, or not, consequences. Say same sex marriage is legalized and a couple wants to be married in a traditional church. If that church refuses will they be sued? So we again force people of faith to either go against their beliefs or face civil and or criminal repercussions? That is the ultimate goal, that is the "Gay agenda", to force people of faith to acquiesce to their demands.
    If governments want to pass laws that allow them to be legally, civilly, married, laws that prohibit discrimination against them by insurance companies, government pensions and benefits etc. that is fine. But if anyone thinks that is the end of it, and there is no further "agenda" then I have some prime ocean front real estate in Arizona I will sell cheap.
  18. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Marriage is a contract between you, your spouse and God. It has been in every culture in the history of the world. It has nothing to do with the state or even getting married in a church. I have known people in polygamous marriages that were not sanctioned by the church, even though there is nothing in scripture to prohibit it. They were married in the eyes of God and made their vows to their spouse and to God in front of witnesses. They are just as much married as anyone who had a traditional ceremony in a church.
    BTPost likes this.
  19. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    The United States Government is a Two Faced corrupt entity when it comes to marriage, traditional, and non-traditional. Here the Gay & Lesbians are demanding, and getting Federal Judges to grant them what they want, but 140 years ago this SAME Federal Government passed Statutes, that we're ENFORCED by Federal Judges, and US Marshals, put people in Federal Prisons, stole Assets, of the Church. These Statutes are still on the Books, that discriminated against the Mormons, and their Marriage Practices. It is hypocrisy at its worst, and yet few even consider that ISSUE, at all. How about them Apples, all you Bleeding Hearts.... Let's us all hear your justification for those actions by our Federal Government.
    Minuteman likes this.
  20. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I didn't miss the last sentence of your post...and it wasn't's just a suggestion too bizarre to contemplate. All that will happen is that the regulatory functions of marriage, formerly undertaken by the secular state are devolved upon sectarian agencies that have their own priorities, biases and interests that may conflict with the persons negotiating a business partnersh um...I mean a marriage contract.

    The Catholic Church's inability to put it's own interests second to the interests of paedophile victims, by using church canon law as a shield against the secular law of the land, and by abusing the secular law of the land to limit its liabilities to paedophile victims is evidence enough that religious institutions can't be trusted to administer their own shonky laws fairly and justly. How are they any better able to competently administer and adjudicate fairly and justly upon quasi commercial marriage contracts. As to Imams issuing equitable marriage fatwas....LMFAO! If the man is a Moslem and the woman is a Christian...who would get jurisdiction? Priest or imam?

    Why should religious institutions broadly...not just Christian churches have a monopoly on regulating the cultural artifact known as marriage. I am not quite sure which is more likely to intrude into the personal life of a marriage relationship...the Church or the State. In my view, a pox on them both. As an atheist....why would I want a religious institution to have any involvement in my liberty to marry whom I wish...straight or gay, or divorce the one I am married to?
    kellory and tulianr like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary