Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Here's hoping Washington and Maryland have enough people to vote good loving common sense to their fellow citizens. Dback, I know this is something very important and please lest anyone think anything, I voted for gay marriage in South Carolina back in 2008, which as we all know got shot down. Hell, in SC, they just passed, recently as 1998, the right to recognize interracial couples as legitimate husband and wife. Ah...one day I will get out of this backwards state. Good luck and God bless!

psychoCAT wrote:Here's hoping Washington and Maryland have enough people to vote good loving common sense to their fellow citizens. Dback, I know this is something very important and please lest anyone think anything, I voted for gay marriage in South Carolina back in 2008, which as we all know got shot down. Hell, in SC, they just passed, recently as 1998, the right to recognize interracial couples as legitimate husband and wife. Ah...one day I will get out of this backwards state. Good luck and God bless!

Ummmm....it's South Carolina. I crossed the border the other day. Other than the shitty roads, it wasn't much of a problem.

Here in MN there is a 'Marriage Amendment' here on our ballots saying marriage is between man/woman and if it passes will go into the state's constitution that way.

psychoCAT wrote:Here's hoping Washington and Maryland have enough people to vote good loving common sense to their fellow citizens. Dback, I know this is something very important and please lest anyone think anything, I voted for gay marriage in South Carolina back in 2008, which as we all know got shot down. Hell, in SC, they just passed, recently as 1998, the right to recognize interracial couples as legitimate husband and wife. Ah...one day I will get out of this backwards state. Good luck and God bless!

You need help packing? That'd be one less asshole in S.C.! So many AH's so little time.

Oh, but good luck to them too. Although I don't think this is a govt issue, and the ballot initiative should be to remove govt sanctioning of a religious entity, I hope they win. And good luck to any medical marijuana initiatives out there today too.

Baldy wrote:

psychoCAT wrote:Here's hoping Washington and Maryland have enough people to vote good loving common sense to their fellow citizens. Dback, I know this is something very important and please lest anyone think anything, I voted for gay marriage in South Carolina back in 2008, which as we all know got shot down. Hell, in SC, they just passed, recently as 1998, the right to recognize interracial couples as legitimate husband and wife. Ah...one day I will get out of this backwards state. Good luck and God bless!

Ummmm....it's South Carolina. I crossed the border the other day. Other than the shitty roads, it wasn't much of a problem.

Shitty roads? That'd be an improvement.

Thanks - also a pro-equality measure on the ballot in Maine!

death dealer wrote:

psychoCAT wrote:Here's hoping Washington and Maryland have enough people to vote good loving common sense to their fellow citizens. Dback, I know this is something very important and please lest anyone think anything, I voted for gay marriage in South Carolina back in 2008, which as we all know got shot down. Hell, in SC, they just passed, recently as 1998, the right to recognize interracial couples as legitimate husband and wife. Ah...one day I will get out of this backwards state. Good luck and God bless!

You need help packing? That'd be one less asshole in S.C.! So many AH's so little time.

I'll bring over some beers...

Is there a difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" as it relates to benefits? I read that France has allowed civil unions for years, but is now struggling to pass gay "marriage" legislation.

89Hen wrote:Is there a difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" as it relates to benefits? I read that France has allowed civil unions for years, but is now struggling to pass gay "marriage" legislation.

The govt should only be in the business of offering validation of civil unions for the purposes of benefits, taxes, ect. Want to be married? Go to a church. That's not the govts business.

89Hen wrote:Is there a difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" as it relates to benefits? I read that France has allowed civil unions for years, but is now struggling to pass gay "marriage" legislation.

If the Government offered only Civil Unions for ALL, and didn't recognize ANY Marriage, that is fine.

Otherwise, as we have found in New Jersey, Civil Unions do not carry the same legal weight as full-fledged marriage.

Remember, all marriages recognized by a Government are Civil Marriages.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:Is there a difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" as it relates to benefits? I read that France has allowed civil unions for years, but is now struggling to pass gay "marriage" legislation.

If the Government offered only Civil Unions for ALL, and didn't recognize ANY Marriage, that is fine.

Otherwise, as we have found in New Jersey, Civil Unions do not carry the same legal weight as full-fledged marriage.

Remember, all marriages recognized by a Government are Civil Marriages.

I'm confused then. If all marriages recognized by a government are civil marriages, then wouldn't the government recognizing a gay civil union be the same thing? Also, a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage still won't recognize a Maryland gay marriage, will they?

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
If the Government offered only Civil Unions for ALL, and didn't recognize ANY Marriage, that is fine.

Otherwise, as we have found in New Jersey, Civil Unions do not carry the same legal weight as full-fledged marriage.

Remember, all marriages recognized by a Government are Civil Marriages.

I'm confused then. If all marriages recognized by a government are civil marriages, then wouldn't the government recognizing a gay civil union be the same thing? Also, a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage still won't recognize a Maryland gay marriage, will they?

It comes down to legal terminology. Many statutues, etc refer to marriage, and fail to accomidate other wording.

And as of now, no, they won't (RI is an exception). But that is going to be decided by the Supreme Court, soon.

dbackjon wrote:It comes down to legal terminology. Many statutues, etc refer to marriage, and fail to accomidate other wording.

And as of now, no, they won't (RI is an exception). But that is going to be decided by the Supreme Court, soon.

I'm just trying to find a place where you can get more people to vote for this Jon. It seems that many people hesitant to vote for this have a problem with the word "marriage" and it would also seem that many states also make a big distinction. Shouldn't the fight be to add "recognized civil unions" to the books in places where it's not? How many times has "gay marriage" been shot down? I think there's a good chance it passes today in MD, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:It comes down to legal terminology. Many statutues, etc refer to marriage, and fail to accomidate other wording.

And as of now, no, they won't (RI is an exception). But that is going to be decided by the Supreme Court, soon.

I'm just trying to find a place where you can get more people to vote for this Jon. It seems that many people hesitant to vote for this have a problem with the word "marriage" and it would also seem that many states also make a big distinction. Shouldn't the fight be to add "recognized civil unions" to the books in places where it's not? How many times has "gay marriage" been shot down? I think there's a good chance it passes today in MD, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

It has been shot down many times - but times are changing - support is growing. We want full equality, terminology is not important.

But civil unions for gays, but allowing marriage for straights is not equality.

dbackjon wrote:But civil unions for gays, but allowing marriage for straights is not equality.

If they have the same benefits?

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:But civil unions for gays, but allowing marriage for straights is not equality.

If they have the same benefits?

History has shown that separate but "equal" is never equal.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: If they have the same benefits?

History has shown that separate but "equal" is never equal.

What would not be equal?

BTW, the law in Maryland would still be separate.

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

89Hen wrote:BTW, the law in Maryland would still be separate.

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

Correct - just like in straight marriage, if a clergy/church doesn't want to marry someone, they don't have too.

I can't walk into a Catholic Church with a woman and demand to be married by the church - this is no different. This is just language to calm unjustified fears.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

History has shown that separate but "equal" is never equal.

What would not be equal?

Benefits, for one. Not just state, but local.


Why are you hung up on not calling it civil marriage?

dbackjon wrote:I can't walk into a Catholic Church with a woman and demand to be married by the church - this is no different. This is just language to calm unjustified fears.

Do you think that would be next?

dbackjon wrote:Why are you hung up on not calling it civil marriage?

Above^

89Hen wrote:I'm just trying to find a place where you can get more people to vote for this Jon. It seems that many people hesitant to vote for this have a problem with the word "marriage" and it would also seem that many states also make a big distinction. Shouldn't the fight be to add "recognized civil unions" to the books in places where it's not? How many times has "gay marriage" been shot down? I think there's a good chance it passes today in MD, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

death dealer wrote:Oh, but good luck to them too. Although I don't think this is a govt issue, and the ballot initiative should be to remove govt sanctioning of a religious entity, I hope they win. And good luck to any medical marijuana initiatives out there today too.

This. I do not understand why the gay marriage movement would rather have recognition from the government than to perpetuate freedom by ridding us of government-sanctioned marriage. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Edit: inability to type correctly

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:I can't walk into a Catholic Church with a woman and demand to be married by the church - this is no different. This is just language to calm unjustified fears.

Do you think that would be next?

No. Why would it?