shame on cali

[thesightless]

apparently the progressive state isnt so progressive.

what the fuck is wrong with people where they can tout the equality theme from either the liberal or religious POV's but then deny someone's basic legal rights?

im sorry but when were gay people walking into churches, having sex on the alters, all the while yelling "HAHA WE"RE GAY""

ffs, they are people too, and they arent offending anyone.

[ddr]

Re: shame on cali

dont they already have the same rights with the unionships, etc... only the term "marriage" and the piece of paper to go along with it is missing right?

if i am wrong please correct.

[toasty]

Re: shame on cali

dont they already have the same rights with the unionships, etc... only the term "marriage" and the piece of paper to go along with it is missing right?

if i am wrong please correct.

not everywhere, no. State by state.

[toasty]

Re: shame on cali

This is a collosal bummer, btw. I would have thought if there was anywhere this was guaranteed to pass, it would be California.

This highlights something about this election that Obama would be wise to heed, though. I'm kinda talking out of my ass here, so bear with the stream of consciousness.

First, check out this map -- blue is where a county voted more democratic than 2004, red is where it voted more republican, and the deeper the color, the bigger the swing...



Obviously, a lot of blue there, meaning that a lot of people voted for Obama that haven't voted for a democrat before.

When you look at ballot initiatives on specific issues, though, like this one on gay marriage, you don't necessarily see this same tilt to the left. Suggests that people are voting for Obama specifically, not for liberal ideology generally. I'm actually a bit thankful that the Dems didn't get a filibuster-proof majority, as it will ensure that Congress cannot just ram shit through, and we will still need to seek compromise to get anything meaningful done because regardless of who is in control, the worst laws are made when one party is completely unchecked (whether literally or practically unchecked).

Obama's theme and message was very much focused upon bipartisan compromise, not uber-liberal policies, and I'm hopeful that he's sharp enough to recognize that he should dance with the one that brought him. I for one believe him, but obviously, we'll have to wait and see.

[speciale]

Re: shame on cali

we have a black president, do you think there will ever be a gay one?

Let gays get married. you are born gay and its not a choice. dont penalize someone for being gay. Religion and politics should not mix. This type of stuff is a waste of tax payer money.

[88Mariner]

Re: shame on cali

what about two heterosexual men who want to take advantage of tax laws?

[toasty]

Re: shame on cali

what about two heterosexual men who want to take advantage of tax laws?

not following you, pls elaborate...

[thesightless]

Re: shame on cali

@ toasty's second post, first paragraph

sadly, i think if this were put to a nationwide popular vote, it fail as well, just too many people hold that word sacred. any religion. and ii think it would fail massivly. says somethign about the hypocracy of our free society huh... fucking pathetic.

[thesightless]

Re: shame on cali

not following you, pls elaborate...

two straight guys filing as married joint to get the lower bracket and exemptions.

[88Mariner]

Re: shame on cali

why can't two heterosexual males marry. they get to sleep with all the women they want, practically having a bachelor pad. Think like, Sasha & Digweed getting married. They be banging chicks, but you know, being single while making tons of money does not equal fun in April. Why not allow them to be married?

I've actually heard of this before, involving two celebrities from back in the 30's. They didn't marry, but they did own a big giant home in hollywood together with tons of women over.

[toasty]

Re: shame on cali

two straight guys filing as married joint to get the lower bracket and exemptions.

gotcha, misread the original post. My bad.

Thinking out loud here, but I guess that could be considered tax fraud?

[speciale]

Re: shame on cali

I've actually heard of this before, involving two celebrities from back in the 30's. They didn't marry, but they did own a big giant home in hollywood together with tons of women over.

isn't that called having a roommate?

[ddr]

Re: shame on cali

not everywhere, no. State by state.

i meant in California, sorry.

dont they already get tax advantages etc.?

[88Mariner]

Re: shame on cali

^ basically. but for personal taxation benefits.

Technically, it would be tax fraud. But, if two heterosexual males are allowed to marry, why would it be, thus?

Clearly, marriage does not often require sex as most of you know. In fact, most marriages result in platonic friendship, A marriage is not a testament to sexual activity, is it? Is it simply not a bond between two people? How could this not be applicable to two heterosexual friends?

I now pronounce you Sasha & Digweed.

[thesightless]

Re: shame on cali

there are more than tax benifits at stake.

transfer of benifits, benefactory rights of custodialship, healthcare plans, retirement plans, THE SIMPLE LEGAL RIGHT OF EQUALITY (remember that line "we hold these truths to be self evident..") choices upon incapacitation, wills, estates, trusts.