Federal Judge rules Utah Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[CID1990]

I don't think whether it is a "preference" or a "characteristic" changes the analysis, though.

On the plus side, though, look at it this way. This case is plainly ticketed for the Supreme Court.

Back in the early 1970s, the State of Texas cross appealed from a District Court's declaratory judgment voiding Texas' anti-abortion laws. Texas' cross appeal ultimately was heard by the Supreme Court, and the Court's ruling had the effect of striking down ALL anti-abortion laws throughout the United States.

Utah should be mindful of the adage "be careful what you ask for." Its appeal might ultimately take down all gay marriage restrictions in the US.

If the Federal Government and states got out of the business
of making marriage a financial TAX advantage the whole thing becomes a non-issue

Didn't I say this before a million times?

But I like seeing you say it.... gonna start calling you Rand permanently

[Skjellyfetti]

Whenever some aggrieved class in America has received their 'welcome to the club' card it was handed to them by white men so your drama doesnt hold up.

I guess this is what white men "handing" them equality looks like. Just out of the kindness of their hearts.

So generous.

[ASUMountaineer]

It is easy to laugh and make fun of those struggling to achieve equality.

But straight, white men for the most part don't have a clue about that.

Whenever some aggrieved class in America has received their 'welcome to the club' card it was handed to them by white men so your drama doesnt hold up.

So you're saying it's like FCS schools wanting to move to FBS and shut the door behind them?

[ASUMountaineer]

If the Federal Government and states got out of the business
of making marriage a financial TAX advantage the whole thing becomes a non-issue

Didn't I say this before a million times?

But I like seeing you say it.... gonna start calling you Rand permanently

I've been telling this to dback for years. He would rather have scraps from the government table than actual equality.

[dbackjon]

Didn't I say this before a million times?

But I like seeing you say it.... gonna start calling you Rand permanently

I've been telling this to dback for years. He would rather have scraps from the government table than actual equality.

And as I have been saying for years:

1) Equality is not scraps
2) It goes far beyond taxes - hospital rights, burial rights, rights to decide what happens to your spouse in case of illness or death
3) Let's have the straights give up all their bennies first - never happening.

[Ibanez]

I've been telling this to dback for years. He would rather have scraps from the government table than actual equality.

And as I have been saying for years:

1) Equality is not scraps
2) It goes far beyond taxes - hospital rights, burial rights, rights to decide what happens to your spouse in case of illness or death
3) Let's have the straights give up all their bennies first - never happening.

The government shouldn't be sanctioning marriages..END. OF. STORY.

[JoltinJoe]

And as I have been saying for years:

1) Equality is not scraps
2) It goes far beyond taxes - hospital rights, burial rights, rights to decide what happens to your spouse in case of illness or death
3) Let's have the straights give up all their bennies first - never happening.

The government shouldn't be sanctioning marriages..END. OF. STORY.

But since it does, is it right that straight people enjoy rights associated with marriage that gay people do not?

[Chizzang]

Whenever some aggrieved class in America has received their 'welcome to the club' card it was handed to them by white men so your drama doesnt hold up.

There are so many things wrong with this ^ attitude and position its hard to even respond...
It's so "Let them eat cake" I'm having a hard time not lashing out at it's stupidity

[Ibanez]

The government shouldn't be sanctioning marriages..END. OF. STORY.

But since it does, is it right that straight people enjoy rights associated with marriage that gay people do not?

No it isn't right. Gay people should have the same rights, privileges and protections as heterosexual couples.

[JoltinJoe]

But since it does, is it right that straight people enjoy rights associated with marriage that gay people do not?

No it isn't right. Gay people should have the same rights, privileges and protections as heterosexual couples.

I figured you thought so. I think the Windsor case was a great example of how a gay couple (or the survivor in a gay couple arrangement) can get screwed by present laws.

[Ibanez]

No it isn't right. Gay people should have the same rights, privileges and protections as heterosexual couples.

I figured you thought so. I think the Windsor case was a great example of how a gay couple (or the survivor in a gay couple arrangement) can get screwed by present laws.

It's ridiculous to say you(not you personally, the understood you) respect and want freedom but then deny it to others on the basis of skin color, gender, religion (who here loves Muslims?) or sexual preference.

[ASUMountaineer]

I've been telling this to dback for years. He would rather have scraps from the government table than actual equality.

And as I have been saying for years:

1) Equality is not scraps
2) It goes far beyond taxes - hospital rights, burial rights, rights to decide what happens to your spouse in case of illness or death
3) Let's have the straights give up all their bennies first - never happening.

1) Equality will happen when the government doesn't pick winners and losers.
2) Please expound...
3) Where can I sign up? I value increased personal freedom over government recognition.

I do have one simple question. Do you think it's a question of equality if your company provides benefits to spouses of married heterosexual couples and partners of same-sex domestic partnerships, but not to partners of heterosexual domestic partnerships?

[dbackjon]

And as I have been saying for years:

1) Equality is not scraps
2) It goes far beyond taxes - hospital rights, burial rights, rights to decide what happens to your spouse in case of illness or death
3) Let's have the straights give up all their bennies first - never happening.

1) Equality will happen when the government doesn't pick winners and losers.
2) Please expound...
3) Where can I sign up? I value increased personal freedom over government recognition.

I do have one simple question. Do you think it's a question of equality if your company provides benefits to spouses of married heterosexual couples and partners of same-sex domestic partnerships, but not to partners of heterosexual domestic partnerships?

1) That is a pipe dream. Any form of government (even anarchy) picks winners and losers
2) Look up "Bridegroom - it can happen to you" - short video, now a full length documentary. Gays are routinely denied visitation rights, funeral rights etc because if we are not married, we are not family.
3) You can always file married - filing jointly.

If a state allows gay marriage, then they either allow DP for both, or neither. If a state doesn't currently allow gay marriage, it is fair, because the heteros, if they are really in a committed relationship, can get married

[CID1990]

Whenever some aggrieved class in America has received their 'welcome to the club' card it was handed to them by white men so your drama doesnt hold up.

There are so many things wrong with this ^ attitude and position its hard to even respond...
It's so "Let them eat cake" I'm having a hard time not lashing out at it's stupidity

No- I know exactly what you see wrong with this-

But you are looking past the fact that it is a response to the usual canard that "straight, white males" are somehow de debbil.

I happen to be a straight, white male and take issue with Jon and others' bigoted, generalized view.

Aside from that, I'm not surprised that Jon and Sk totally missed the point, but I expect more from you.

[ASUMountaineer]

1) Equality will happen when the government doesn't pick winners and losers.
2) Please expound...
3) Where can I sign up? I value increased personal freedom over government recognition.

I do have one simple question. Do you think it's a question of equality if your company provides benefits to spouses of married heterosexual couples and partners of same-sex domestic partnerships, but not to partners of heterosexual domestic partnerships?

1) That is a pipe dream. Any form of government (even anarchy) picks winners and losers

Why not strive for something better, for more than a select group?

2) Look up "Bridegroom - it can happen to you" - short video, now a full length documentary. Gays are routinely denied visitation rights, funeral rights etc because if we are not married, we are not family.

I don't doubt it, and I think it's wrong.

3) You can always file married - filing jointly.

Again, I'm willing to give up the benefits for true equality.

If a state allows gay marriage, then they either allow DP for both, or neither. If a state doesn't currently allow gay marriage, it is fair, because the heteros, if they are really in a committed relationship, can get married

But, why should they be penalized for not obtaining a government-sanctioned marriage? This is why government-sanctioned marriage is ridiculous. Why should they be refused the same rights you covet because they choose not to marry?

Nevertheless, I went through all of that to prove a point. You only want to change the rules to cover yourself, but not everyone.

Look, we actually are on a lot of common ground, I want equality for everyone. I just think that there's a way that will actually expand personal freedom for everyone instead of a select few.

[dbackjon]

1) That is a pipe dream. Any form of government (even anarchy) picks winners and losers

Why not strive for something better, for more than a select group?

2) Look up "Bridegroom - it can happen to you" - short video, now a full length documentary. Gays are routinely denied visitation rights, funeral rights etc because if we are not married, we are not family.

I don't doubt it, and I think it's wrong.

3) You can always file married - filing jointly.

Again, I'm willing to give up the benefits for true equality.

If a state allows gay marriage, then they either allow DP for both, or neither. If a state doesn't currently allow gay marriage, it is fair, because the heteros, if they are really in a committed relationship, can get married

But, why should they be penalized for not obtaining a government-sanctioned marriage? This is why government-sanctioned marriage is ridiculous. Why should they be refused the same rights you covet because they choose not to marry?

Nevertheless, I went through all of that to prove a point. You only want to change the rules to cover yourself, but not everyone.

Look, we actually are on a lot of common ground, I want equality for everyone. I just think that there's a way that will actually expand personal freedom for everyone instead of a select few.

What I want is equality, plain and simple.

[Skjellyfetti]

No- I know exactly what you see wrong with this-

But you are looking past the fact that it is a response to the usual canard that "straight, white males" are somehow de debbil.

I happen to be a straight, white male and take issue with Jon and others' bigoted, generalized view.

Aside from that, I'm not surprised that Jon and Sk totally missed the point, but I expect more from you.

No, you did a really shitty job making your dumbass point.

[Chizzang]

There are so many things wrong with this ^ attitude and position its hard to even respond...
It's so "Let them eat cake" I'm having a hard time not lashing out at it's stupidity

No- I know exactly what you see wrong with this-

But you are looking past the fact that it is a response to the usual canard that "straight, white males" are somehow de debbil.

I happen to be a straight, white male and take issue with Jon and others' bigoted, generalized view.

Aside from that, I'm not surprised that Jon and Sk totally missed the point, but I expect more from you.

You might have chosen a different vector
It came across as: "We'll be greeted as liberators"
(after carpet bombing their cities and neighborhoods)



Just a little bit arrogant and self entitled
(You'll have all the equality, freedom and respect we decide to give you bitch)

[ASUMountaineer]

But, why should they be penalized for not obtaining a government-sanctioned marriage? This is why government-sanctioned marriage is ridiculous. Why should they be refused the same rights you covet because they choose not to marry?

Nevertheless, I went through all of that to prove a point. You only want to change the rules to cover yourself, but not everyone.

Look, we actually are on a lot of common ground, I want equality for everyone. I just think that there's a way that will actually expand personal freedom for everyone instead of a select few.

What I want is equality, plain and simple.

That's what I want too. But, legalizing gay marriage in this country will not provide equality to all.

[CID1990]

No- I know exactly what you see wrong with this-

But you are looking past the fact that it is a response to the usual canard that "straight, white males" are somehow de debbil.

I happen to be a straight, white male and take issue with Jon and others' bigoted, generalized view.

Aside from that, I'm not surprised that Jon and Sk totally missed the point, but I expect more from you.

No, you did a really shitty job making your dumbass point.

No, you dont like it because you cannot comprehend it.

And you cant get your mind around the concept that you might be a bigot.

Being white or straight has nothing to do with whether you would support gay marriage or not.

ERGO, it has been straight white males who ultimately facilitated emancipation, universal suffrage, and eventually, gay marriage.

[CID1990]

No- I know exactly what you see wrong with this-

But you are looking past the fact that it is a response to the usual canard that "straight, white males" are somehow de debbil.

I happen to be a straight, white male and take issue with Jon and others' bigoted, generalized view.

Aside from that, I'm not surprised that Jon and Sk totally missed the point, but I expect more from you.

You might have chosen a different vector
It came across as: "We'll be greeted as liberators"
(after carpet bombing their cities and neighborhoods)



Just a little bit arrogant and self entitled
(You'll have all the equality, freedom and respect we decide to give you bitch)

I intentionally did it that way.

Only blunt objects work in here

[Grizalltheway]

No, you did a really shitty job making your dumbass point.

No, you dont like it because you cannot comprehend it.

And you cant get your mind around the concept that you might be a bigot.

Being white or straight has nothing to do with whether you would support gay marriage or not.

ERGO, it has been straight white males who ultimately facilitated emancipation, universal suffrage, and eventually, gay marriage.

Yeah, but you insinuated that they (or we) did it gladly and willingly, and not after decades of struggle on the part of the aggrieved classes.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, you dont like it because you cannot comprehend it.

And you cant get your mind around the concept that you might be a bigot.

Being white or straight has nothing to do with whether you would support gay marriage or not.

PSSSST. THERE'S A HUGE LEAP IN LOGIC HERE... OR YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ERGO MEANS.

ERGO, it has been straight white males who ultimately facilitated emancipation, universal suffrage, and eventually, gay marriage.

And, you make it sound as though blacks, women, and gays have played no role at all in their own struggle for equality. I'm not saying there have been no straight white men that have fought for equality over the years. But, the establishment whites have NOT ceded power willingly in any of the above cases... and it took years of struggle to loosen their grasp.

White people didn't simply "hand" them equality...

[Chizzang]

I intentionally did it that way.

Only blunt objects work in here

hmmm...
I'll give you a pass on this one - and I'm not sure why
I think you might be channeling Rush or Hannity right now

I believe those guys (Rush and Hannity) are used as tools to stir up the craziest segments of society and then after the dust settles the regular old trickle down Republicanisms don't seem so brutal

I think you're doing that here on this thread

[kalm]

I love being a white male and don't feel persecuted in the least!