So Beck rips into Colorado today.....

[Rucker61]

Of course not all of them are, but why should anyone have to vote for their right to do anything? Again, it's the mindset that many have that they want the government to give them the right to do something, when in reality they already have that right by virtue of being alive. Why ask the government for something that you already posess? Because they don't understand liberty.

Because the laws say, "No, you can't visit your long term partner in the ICU" and "No, your partner died without a will, so all of their shit goes to his nieces" or "No, you can't filed Married: jointly on your taxes". The folks saying 'no' have the power of arrest and confiscation.

[Jer]

I agree. It's distasteful that they have to.

Really? I think it's embarrassing that they HAVE to.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Because the laws say, "No, you can't visit your long term partner in the ICU" and "No, your partner died without a will, so all of their shit goes to his nieces" or "No, you can't filed Married: jointly on your taxes". The folks saying 'no' have the power of arrest and confiscation.

Horse feathers. This is more of the homosexual lobby propaganda. Hospital visitation rules are set for the protection of the patient and apply with equal force for anyone regardless of gender or sexual preference. Want to fix this? Get powers of attorney and then set the laws to recognize said powers of attorney. You do not need to monkey with the definition of what constitutes marriage. Of course, this doesn't fit the extremist agenda to redefine societal norms so not a solution they're willing to even recognize.

As far as probate laws go, it's easy to fix inheritance -- make a damned will. Again, no need to monkey with the definition of marriage except that the simple remedy of creating a will doesn't fit the extremist agenda to redefine society.

You have the right of free association -- it says so right in the Constitution. However, free association does NOT mean the government HAS to recognize any particular union. There's stronger historical precedent across most societies and religions for incestuous and polygamist marriages than for homosexual marriages so why don't we start with those? Answer (question was rhetorical anyway): incest and polygamy don't have strong political lobbies with deep roots in the entertainment industry and "mainstream" media.

I don't mind the homosexual lobby trying to change societal views on the norms but what pisses me off is the sneaky underhanded way they are doing it and the misrepresentations about "rights" and grievances.

[Jer]

Horse feathers. This is more of the homosexual lobby propaganda. Hospital visitation rules are set for the protection of the patient and apply with equal force for anyone regardless of gender or sexual preference. Want to fix this? Get powers of attorney and then set the laws to recognize said powers of attorney. You do not need to monkey with the definition of what constitutes marriage. Of course, this doesn't fit the extremist agenda to redefine societal norms so not a solution they're willing to even recognize.

As far as probate laws go, it's easy to fix inheritance -- make a damned will. Again, no need to monkey with the definition of marriage except that the simple remedy of creating a will doesn't fit the extremist agenda to redefine society.

You have the right of free association -- it says so right in the Constitution. However, free association does NOT mean the government HAS to recognize any particular union. There's stronger historical precedent across most societies and religions for incestuous and polygamist marriages than for homosexual marriages so why don't we start with those? Answer (question was rhetorical anyway): incest and polygamy don't have strong political lobbies with deep roots in the entertainment industry and "mainstream" media.

I don't mind the homosexual lobby trying to change societal views on the norms but what pisses me off is the sneaky underhanded way they are doing it and the misrepresentations about "rights" and grievances.

You mean the same societal views that are enforced by a government who grants special treatment and tax breaks for those married? Seems when they started trying to legislate morality they kind of screwed themselves on that one. Why the government has ANY dealings with marriage is beyond me but they do. So here we are.

[Ronin13]

Horse feathers. This is more of the homosexual lobby propaganda. Hospital visitation rules are set for the protection of the patient and apply with equal force for anyone regardless of gender or sexual preference. Want to fix this? Get powers of attorney and then set the laws to recognize said powers of attorney. You do not need to monkey with the definition of what constitutes marriage. Of course, this doesn't fit the extremist agenda to redefine societal norms so not a solution they're willing to even recognize.

As far as probate laws go, it's easy to fix inheritance -- make a damned will. Again, no need to monkey with the definition of marriage except that the simple remedy of creating a will doesn't fit the extremist agenda to redefine society.

You have the right of free association -- it says so right in the Constitution. However, free association does NOT mean the government HAS to recognize any particular union. There's stronger historical precedent across most societies and religions for incestuous and polygamist marriages than for homosexual marriages so why don't we start with those? Answer (question was rhetorical anyway): incest and polygamy don't have strong political lobbies with deep roots in the entertainment industry and "mainstream" media.

I don't mind the homosexual lobby trying to change societal views on the norms but what pisses me off is the sneaky underhanded way they are doing it and the misrepresentations about "rights" and grievances.

Hell yes!

[def90]

You mean the same societal views that are enforced by a government who grants special treatment and tax breaks for those married?

Exactly..

Theoretically the Government via separation of church and state should not even be granting "Marriage" licenses anyway. Apparently "Marriage" is defined in the Bible and is a religious term. A simple solution would be to take government completely out of the issue in the 1st place. If you want to get "married" go talk to your priest.. End of story.

[Rucker61]

Exactly..

Theoretically the Government via separation of church and state should not even be granting "Marriage" licenses anyway. Apparently "Marriage" is defined in the Bible and is a religious term. A simple solution would be to take government completely out of the issue in the 1st place. If you want to get married go talk to your priest.. End of story.

This is a big part of it: once marriage is religious, and anything to do with government like probate, taxes, etc, isn't limited to hetero couples, then we've got equality under the law. Sure, gay folks might complain that their Catholic priest won't marry them, but that's not our business. Governmentally, we need to have equality. That's all most gay people want. That's all most of us want. Outliers are in every demographic, admittedly.

[Stvros]

I don't want to flame this thread and was guilty of some serious hyperbole so I edited this response, hope I didnt offend anyone. Carry on...