How to divide a political constituency

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by painter

I give you credit Whell. Your like the battery bunny and have lasted on this site longer than most. There appears to be no place for anyone sharing comments from the other side. Political chat is allowed if you happen to agree with the right. If not...fodder for pit bull attacks.

Did you also feel sorry for Richard Nixon because Pat had to wear a cloth coat?

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

Since when are lapdogs pitbulls?

[mezz]

I've even been hearing them dubbed "The N-double-Gay-CP" lately. No wonder he bailed.

[merrylander]

I was glad to see the NAACP recognize that all people deserve the same civil rights. Those so called religious people in the African American community who object really have no grounds for their objection. And I challance them to show me where Jesus said anything about this subject.

You are right in one thing Mam, like the Energizer Bunny he keeps on beating that same poor drum.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by mezz

I've even been hearing them dubbed "The N-double-Gay-CP" lately. No wonder he bailed.

I can't imagine what upstanding source provided that insight. Rush maybe?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I can't imagine what upstanding source provided that insight. Rush maybe?

Is it not amusing that the man/woman marriage bunch also has a 50% divorce rate.

[mezz]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Is it not amusing that the man/woman marriage bunch also has a 50% divorce rate.

Exactly why it seem ridiculous for government to me to be expanding the concept rather than abolishing it. Marriage should exist only as a religious sacrament, while a couples interaction with the state for tax, ownership, pension, etc purposes should be defined under some sort of 'civil union' construct which doesn't care about the gender of it's participants.

I know you have lived in Canada. The system up there is much closer to what I'm talking about. They legalized nationwide same-sex marriage in 2005 to comparatively little fanfare and most provinces had recognized common-law cohabitations and same-sex civil unions to have basically the same rights as marriages for some time before that anyway.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by mezz

Exactly why it seem ridiculous for government to me to be expanding the concept rather than abolishing it. Marriage should exist only as a religious sacrament, while a couples interaction with the state for tax, ownership, pension, etc purposes should be defined under some sort of 'civil union' construct which doesn't care about the gender of it's participants.

I know you have lived in Canada. The system up there is much closer to what I'm talking about. They legalized nationwide same-sex marriage in 2005 to comparatively little fanfare and most provinces had recognized common-law cohabitations and same-sex civil unions to have basically the same rights as marriages for some time before that anyway.

The basic problem is that so many laws have used the word "marriage" rather than "civil union" that they would still suffer discrimination. As far as religion goes I thought we had separation of church and state.

I still want someone to show me the passage in the gospel where Jesus said anything one way or the other on the subject. I recall that He was said to have turned water into wine at a marriage celebration.

Many companies in Canada recognized what is termed "common law spouses" for years. It was interesting to note that Quebec, a predominantly catholic province, did not make a fuss.

I suppose if they simply passed a law stating that in any other laws wherever the words "marriage, married" appear also add "civil union, civil unions"

Oddly enough when France introduced civil unions people practically stopped getting married in churches.

My first marriage was in the Anglican church, fat lot of good that did. Second was by a "Celebrant in VA" much better as I was free to tell him to forget that jazz about 'Obey" since we were partners, not master and slave.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

Step one: as a Democrat, and as President, announce your support for homosexual marriage

Step two: let the chips fall where they may.

Case in point: http://qctimes.com/news/local/iowa-n...9bb2963f4.html

A few days ago I posted an article about a Dem party leader in PA defecting over the issue. Folks here in this forum derided her as a DINO, and characterized her with other less flattering terms.

I suspect it would be tough to characterize this guy as a DINO, however.

No let's be historically accurate my tea party pied piperee...

1) Let's not extend the debt ceiling because our President is either foreign or
African American...never mind that previous Presidents both from the GOP and Democratic Party always had the ceiling raised with perfunctory votes.
Then hold the country hostage for draconian cuts that if enacted will cause a double dip recession like what is going on in the UK right now. And refuse infrastructure improvements and job creations bills to further slow down growth in our fragile economy. And then start a war on women...

2) Let the chips fall where they may...

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mezz

I know you have lived in Canada. The system up there is much closer to what I'm talking about. They legalized nationwide same-sex marriage in 2005 to comparatively little fanfare and most provinces had recognized common-law cohabitations and same-sex civil unions to have basically the same rights as marriages for some time before that anyway.

The legitimacy of common-law marriage in the US has been affirmed by the SCOTUS (Meister v. Moore). It's a mess with some states recognizing it and some not. Among the states which do recognize it, there is no consistency at all from one state to the next....

.... except for one thing. All 50 states (or, for you Right Wing Nut Jobs, 49 states and Hawaii) recognize the legitimacy of a couple's common-law marriage even if they themselves don't allow such marriages. Would that were true for gay marriages and gay civil unions!

John