Gynis

This is an EXCELLENT edit.

Lemon already posted that they took the religion out of marriage in the law with Clinton's signature. Even though it might have been based on a religious institution, they pretty much gave us what the "legal" definition of marriage is. So - even if they change the name, the law would still stick. Homosexuals do not have equal rights under the law. The world needs to understand that there are two definitions for the same word, one legal and one religious. You can prescribe to one or both, but the legal one should be the one I use to file my taxes.

Margin of error.

I think it's 95% monologue, 2% outburst, 1% trolling. This post bumps the 1% analysis.

I'm going to deny, again, because it's still a legitimate discussion that is heated, but so far not out of control. Those who are toe-ing the line have been informed and won't go back to it. Don't brace for the onslaught. I promise, a few level heads are monitoring this thread quite closely.

It's not out of hand yet. I've only had to make three edits. This is nothing compared to the DKP thread.

I disagree. I think it started too, but people are dialing it back. Kudos to FPers keeping it level. I just like to issue my standard warning on divisive topics. It's good to hear the back and forth. There's little debate here, because I think most people have made up their minds on this issue, and are simply espousing their opinions and their version of the facts. Although, I always take people more seriously when the point me to their sources, and those sources are credible and fact based. Religion and politics are taboo at the dinner table for a reason. This one has the nice, tidy benefit of pulling from both forbidden wells. The thing I find the most interesting is that religious morality is being injected into civil law. The law isn't meant to uphold a religious ideology or surpress it (at least in this country). I wish that this topic wasn't so deeply tied to people's religious upbringings, because those vary almost as much as people do. To me, if your priest doesn't want to marry you to someone of the same sex, that's between him, you and God. If your local magistrate doesn't, however, simply because of your sexual preference then it is detrimental discrimination by denying a set of benefits and privaleges from a section of the population based on ideology that has no place in government to begin with (in my opinion.)

There are certainly some interesting thoughts here, a few that I think are out of left field. And Thruster, I'm writing you off as a troll, so don't expect much of a response on derisive one-liners with no real thought process behind them. First, Gay marriage WAS voted on by the people, as a law, and accepted. It was then taken back to the public again for an amendment to overturn it. So the idea that "the people have spoken" cuts both ways. Sorry, thems the facts. Additionally, the majority doesn't mean that we have to accept it. Denying civil rights based on race in the south was the MAJORITY of the people in 1955. It has since been shown to be an ignorant majority. I expect this will result in the same kind of enlightenment, especially if people's tax exempt status starts to get toyed with. It will however, take the hard work of those who are directly impactd by this (the gays not allowed to marry) before those who really don't have anything to do with it (save moral outrage and moral grandstanding) to realize their goals. Politics aside, let me make one more thing perfectly clear. FP has rules. Rules that govern these forums and that the leadership WILL enforce. Ideas are great. Even controversial ones. But should this discussion get out of hand (as it is already poised to do) I will shut it down and remove it faster than you can click "refresh" on your browser to make your response. Keep your tones civil, this discussion constructive, and your tempers in check. I can assure you that FP does not enjoy freedom of expression or speech. Here, you keep your quippy comments and defamation in your nighttime journal. Having FP members make asses of themselves here is not my cup of tea.

Zombies have never been so fabulous?

ZOMG So exciting!

I like muscato as well. I think my tastes have changed though. I'm not nearly as into super sweet desert wines as I used to be. I've taken to drinking jet fuel.

That poor woman.

Or it means, as it should, that the transparency is enough to hide the fact that the things that they are doing that are improper are REALLY effing effective (read - more than likely morally reprehensible and illegal.) It's a good policy.

I think Honki just discovered his first favorite politician.

Actually, this does a pretty good job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_re...e_United_States

Legally, property cannot be gifted to a civil partner. If you give a gift more than 12,000 it must be claimed on a tax return. This is not the case for Married Couples. In the event of a death for a civil partner who dies intestate, property is passed to the next of kin (blood relative) not the civil partner. If one does not exist, the estate goes into Probate. The probate courts are not obligated to recognize the relationship. Civil partners cannot file "Married" on tax returns, meaning they do not get a marriage tax credit afforded to couples. In some states, they are attempting to pass laws requiring couples to be married to adopt. If gay couples cannot marry, they cannot adopt. This is to name a few. I'm sure I can find a complete laundry list, if you'd like.

When the homos do it, it's a parade, not a march. =/

If all of the Homos left california, the state would shut down. Bye-bye movie industry. That's kind of sad. But - the word "marriage" is the hot button. The issue isn't "proving" something they already knew, it's somehow securing the same rights between domestic partners as a husband and wife in relation to property, living wills, medical decisions, taxes, and insurance. It's a piece of paper that does more than say you care for your wife/husband. In fact, I'm pretty sure in the eyes of the law, it doesn't really matter if you love the person or not.

I did. I don't care how you voted. . . but did you?!

I welcome uprisings! Makes the world a far more interesting place.

If he would have stuck with "Sad Grandpa" it could have potentially changed my vote.

Time to become a cigar smoking scotch drinker.

I don't think I can make it this year! Sorry.

I believe Ghost is a Gaper.

Shad's got a point. Documentation: http://www.shotgunrules.com/