Comments on: A Petition to Ban Divorce: It Protects Traditional Marriage!

By: AxeGrrl

AxeGrrl — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:48:05 +0000

ChameleonDave wrote:

what a marriage ‘is’ is determined by the 2 people involved…

2? Why only 2? Isn’t that bigotry?

Hey, I have no objections to polygamy among consenting adults I merely said ’2′ because that’s the current legal reality ~ not to suggest that that’s how it ‘should’ be

By: Tracie F Gib

Tracie F Gib — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:10:32 +0000

I say we do both:

1) Ban currently unmarried heterosexual couples from being married by the state on the reasoning presented so ably by those above, i.e. that the the rulings already in place logically prevent it, and

2) Prevent all who are already married from divorcing, no matter how duplicitous, depraved and violent their relationships may become.

Then, let’s see how long it takes them to understand.

By: ChameleonDave

ChameleonDave — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:55:12 +0000

what a marriage ‘is’ is determined by the 2 people involved…

2? Why only 2? Isn’t that bigotry?

By: AxeGrrl

AxeGrrl — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:04:48 +0000

Neon Genesis wrote:

Isn’t that the same thing with a different name? Why not just call it marriage then and the bigots can STFU it? It seems like a double standard that gays should be expected to treat civil unions as the same thing as marriage but the moment anyone suggests we should just go ahead and call it the same, then all of the suddenly it’s magically different, disproving the claim that civil unions are just as good as marriage.

Perfectly said!

I have to say, it annoys the hell out of me when some people say ‘gov’t should just get out of the marriage business and leave it to churches’…..

well, i’m sorry, but NO church or religion ‘owns’ marriage. It’s as simple as that. To say ‘leave marriage to churches’ is tantamount to just throwing in the towel to bigotry.

Aside from the basic legal aspects, what a marriage ‘is’ is determined by the 2 people involved….and by no one else. I always laugh when some anti-gay marriage person says that such couplings go against what their idea of ‘what marriage should be‘. I laugh because as they say such a thing, there are thousands of marriages that don’t fit their ‘idea’ of what marriage ‘should’ be ~ thousands of marriages in which both partners have sex with other people, thousands of marriages in which there is NO sex whatsoever…….there exists any number of marriages that run counter to what many people think marriage ‘should’ be.

That’s the reality. To suggest that gay marriage is soooooo ‘different’ from what already exists is either ignorance or wilful ignorance.

What the hell is wrong with the people who just CAN’T keep their collective nose out of other peoples’ relationships?

By: Neon Genesis

Neon Genesis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:30:50 +0000

The State should side-step such complicated cultural issues by not recognising marriage at all, only civil unions.

Isn’t that the same thing with a different name? Why not just call it marriage then and the bigots can STFU it? It seems like a double standard that gays should be expected to treat civil unions as the same thing as marriage but the moment anyone suggests we should just go ahead and call it the same, then all of the suddenly it’s magically different, disproving the claim that civil unions are just as good as marriage.

By: Gabriel G.

Gabriel G. — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:45:52 +0000

It’s because they never wanted to “protect marriage,” what they wanted was to take away any rights away from gay people that they could. If they could have taken voting rights or even citizenship away from gay people, they would have probably worded it in a way as if they were trying to “protect heterosexuals from the homosexual disease”.

By: ChameleonDave

ChameleonDave — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:01:42 +0000

Indeed, there is a good argument that marriage should be for ever if it means anything. However, this is not connected to the debate on ‘gay marriage’, which goes so far beyond the idea of what marriage is as to be laughable.

The State should side-step such complicated cultural issues by not recognising marriage at all, only civil unions.

By: Jeni Gray

Jeni Gray — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:25:49 +0000

I think this is brilliant! I also think I’m going to donate a few bucks to help him recover some of the $200 he’s put into this. Mockery and satire are the best responses to insanity.

By: Laura Lou

Laura Lou — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:30:35 +0000

Thanks for the info, TheOtherTom and Alan E. I had heard that as a potential legal strategy back when Prop 8 passed, but I hadn’t heard anything else about it in a while, so I assumed it had failed.

And I’m with you on the niceness thing. Liberals (I am one, heart and soul) in general tend to be a bit too gracious. Ugh, just thinking about how ruthless and bigoted the Prop 8 supporters are makes me sick to my stomach. They get cut so much slack when they are so evil.

By: Alan E.

Alan E. — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:59:09 +0000

@The Other Tom
That is almost exactly what the current federal suit is trying to do. They aren’t trying to make opposite sex marriages illegal, that would require another state level suit, but are using the contradicting language as a case to be rid of Prop 8 (or whatever it’s called now).

The current case is an odd one still. Cities and state attorneys wanted to help out but the lawyers said no thanks. Even the lawyers are an odd story since they were opposing counsel for the Gore v. Bush case in 2000.