There is hope.!

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

If a Federal ruling states that it is illegal to prohibit gay people from Marrying(my mouth is watering), that could add a little sometin' sometin' too. Just a thought.

Poll after Poll shows that younger generations don't have a problem with gay people. So then you come to that thought you don't want to have
'when are the older people going to go away?'

Frequently that is a problem, the outdated ways of doing things. Older generations have more time on their hands so they tend to get more involved in public policy. Like Voting.
That is why we see their 'ways' of thinking awkwardly showing them selves in the real world. It isn't a mystery.
Vote young people.

lol, remember years back when george jr. said "he heard things on the internetS" lol
what a loser.
 
Well, they put a hold on issuing new licenses, but not before 200 or so people got them. I'm sure some of the more religiously-challenged (as opposed to religiously-enlightened, of which there are many) will try to pass a state constitutional ammendment, but we'll see.

Personally, I'd like to see the government out of the "marriage" business altogether. I think that any couple (M/F, M/M, F/F) who wants to have their relationship acknowleged by the state should be issued a civil union license. If that same couple wants to get "married", they would need to go find a religion that will sanctify their particular arrangement.
 
"Frequently that is a problem, the outdated ways of doing things. Older generations have more time on their hands so they tend to get more involved in public policy. Like Voting."

That's actually not the case where I am, especially in the ethnically-based and working-class communities where war is the official religion, and any other agenda item on the neocon platform gets swept along for the ride.

Here, a large number of the young have bought into the "fear" trip, and it guides all of their other choices (as opposed to older people, who are much more concerned with the financial stability of the nation and are far more likely to wave off social issues with a "live and let live" attitude.
 
Dan said: "Personally, I'd like to see the government out of the "marriage" business altogether. I think that any couple (M/F, M/M, F/F) who wants to have their relationship acknowleged by the state should be issued a civil union license. If that same couple wants to get "married", they would need to go find a religion that will sanctify their particular arrangement."

Perfectly stated! I couldn't agree more!
 
I too agree entirely with that concept.

Some people have complained that allowing gay marriage would force churches to compromise their moralities by forcing them to marry gay couples.
First of all I say "Big Fecking Deal" to this, the law gives the shaft to plenty of other churches and customs and I for one would dance with glee were the catholic church to be eradicated.
Second of all, I think that seperation of church and state is an important concept and that seperating the legal aspect (civil partnership, which could benefit many people such as longterm roomates, caregivers to the infirm, siblings living together, the elderly, etc) from the religious elements, is a very good thing. If some church wants to develop obscure criteria for marriage, let 'em -but the can't keep anyone away from the state's benefits, which is as it should be -maximum freedom for all parties involved.
 
"I for one would dance with glee were the catholic church to be eradicated."

Oh? Really?

Is this not a hate-filled comment of your own?

Would you make it of Muslims? Of Jews?

Then what makes you think it is an appropriate comment for this website?
 
Am I the only one who sees that OxyScott has created a new date for August. That being
8/32/07

Kewl.
 
No offence meant, Oxy

I too extend my appology. There is no need for trivial squabling, especially under the happy announcement that sense has struck another community (or at least another judge).
 
'"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Culver said.'

So, you may PERSONALLY believe sex after 30 is a sin for all
I know. Big deal. What's your point?

"House Democrats need to start leading or get out of the way."

And what difference would it make? If they "led" towards a
fair and honest treatment of all individuals, I wonder where
the Repugnicans would be.

GRRR
 
The date bug has been with us since the Discuss-o-Mat went live. It happens for two hours one the last day of every month. I know how to fix it, it will take some reprogramming work, it's just a real low priority and I always forget about it.

Isn't that couple cute!!! Congratulations to them, how exciting to be the first couple to tie the knot legally outside of MA since the MA Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all.
 
My guess is that the US will have to wait the same as what happened in Canada until the federal Supreme court basically over-rules the state Supreme courts as they did the provincial Supreme courts in Canada. What happened here is that Ontario,the largest by population along with a few others started granting SS marriages. Provinces and I'm not sure about States in the US do not have the authority to "define" what is a marriage..ie one man/one woman, that is a federal jurisdiction. The provinces are/were only granted the right to issue marriage certificates etc. The federal Supreme court didn't actually change the wordings what they did was "read into, the Canadian Charter of Rights regarding marriage being solely between one man/one woman was against the charter,,ie unconstitutional and that it must also apply to SS couples. Once they announced that finding it sent out a clear message to the rest of the provinces fighting it that try as they might to stave off SS marriage in their respective provinces they would lose the battle on the first case to make its way up the ladder to the federal courts.
Of course this created a brouhaha all it's own with the anti-crowd screaming that judges were making the laws and not elected officials. The pro side claiming as did the Supreme Court that they were NOT creating new laws only defining the existing laws in a non discriminatory manner
 
What I also find most interesting when drawing parallels between Canada and the US since historically they have always been close and similar is how far Canada has progressed in the past 30 years socially whereas the US has not, other than the black/white issue. We went from almost puritanical, pre 1970's, to a point where I think we even out swede the Swedes who if you're old enough to recollect were always the country that seemed to be at the forefront of social equality and blase attitudes about nudity, sex etc. What's interesting is that in the year or so since the SS ruling it has pretty much become a non-issue anymore and people carry on carrying on as they always have.
I'm also surprised that the UK didn't actually "go all the way" and legalize SS marriage but went the "civil union" route which is just that a "civil union" not a marriage. Canada was even more puritanical than the UK ever was not that long ago.
 

Similar threads

T
1950's GE fridge compressor teardown and failure analysis...
Replies
2
Views
280
turbokinetic
T
W
my Bosch dishwasher has 3 different "intensive" programs & they make it sound like they're all better than each other. what is the difference?
Replies
4
Views
441
phillymatt53
phillymatt53
V
A strange question about refrigerators
Replies
4
Views
141
repairguy
repairguy
cleanteamofny
Changes in Laundry Pod next year
Replies
10
Views
135
launderess
launderess
verizonbear
Whirlpool no longer an appliance technology leader?
Replies
16
Views
296
daveamkrayoguy
daveamkrayoguy

Latest posts

Back
Top