It Can Happen only in Texas.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
He does not own us, and although he is living a very comfortable and pleasant life in Dallas, Texas - we do not feel as if he has us under his thumb.
I am aware of that, unclepercy. However, rightly or wrongly, when a famous, prominent personality hails from a region, that region gets associated with that personality.
Thus, Arkansas is associated with Bill Clinton (Arkansas doesn’t deserve that fame in my opinion; Bill Clinton is a very decent man, while Arkansas is a Bible Belt, redneck state). When one thinks of Illinois, what comes to mind first and foremost? Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps after Obama presidency, Illinois will become associated with Obama (which may be a badge of honour or a badge of shame, depending upon how Obama performs).
Or even take you own Texas (OK, I won’t call it George Bush’s Texas if that bothers you). Who is Texas associated with? Sam Houston.
So rightly or wrongly, prominent, famous personalities always get associated with the region they hail from.
I am aware of that, unclepercy. However, rightly or wrongly, when a famous, prominent personality hails from a region, that region gets associated with that personality.
Thus, Arkansas is associated with Bill Clinton (Arkansas doesn’t deserve that fame in my opinion; Bill Clinton is a very decent man, while Arkansas is a Bible Belt, redneck state). When one thinks of Illinois, what comes to mind first and foremost? Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps after Obama presidency, Illinois will become associated with Obama (which may be a badge of honour or a badge of shame, depending upon how Obama performs).
Or even take you own Texas (OK, I won’t call it George Bush’s Texas if that bothers you). Who is Texas associated with? Sam Houston.
So rightly or wrongly, prominent, famous personalities always get associated with the region they hail from.
Last edited:
I am in Toronto so if you want to marry your room mate you can just go right ahead.
So you figure in Texas fishing buddies need to marry? I've been around for just shy of 50 years and married for 27 of those and damned if I want to get hitched with my friends. Plus my wife might get the wrong idea about me.
All those things you mentioned could be satisfied through a living will. As well dispersal of assets and the winding up of an estate is much better done through wills and estate planning than through something as messy as marriage.
Not to mention that if someone dies intestate then there are a whole new set of rules that come into effect.
Marrying your pal just so you can leave her the fishing boat is restupidickulame! For starters who would marry an idiot that came up with that idea? What with the state of divorce, getting married simply for monitary reasons is nuts unless you have nothing at all.
Billions even. I would say nearly everyone holds onto some sort of faith in their time of dieing. But I still feel that most put themselves above others because of their religion in some way. Some far more openly and sanctimoniously, others in a violent and hurtful way. But what makes them this or that when it comes to religion? What they think of themselves or what others think of them?
Your previous post:
"Anyway, what the author seems to be saying is that civil unions are enough, a marriage is not necessary.Now, personally I have no problem with that"
Note that this becomes part of your position to be evaluated and a response is then formulated.
Your next post:
"I define equality as gay marriage, but even American style equality, civil
union, seems as elusive as ever
Note that what you are doing in your very next post is moving the flag.
Your previous post:
"So whether marriage or civil union, the gay dream of equality is still a long way off in USA. "
Note that this becomes part of your position to be evaluated and a response is then formulated.
Your next post:
These numbers (Pew survey) really support my contention, that USA is a lot less gay friendly than Canada, or Europe (in most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand, gays have civil union).
Note that the Pew survey was not meant to refute your contention that the USA is less gay friendly than Canada and Europe. It was intended to refute your latest contention that gay rights are a long way off in the USA.
Note that what you are doing in your very next post is moving the flag again.
"The energy, passion of the opponents is an important factor in any debate about civil union."
Really? How about the diversity of the population? The size of the population? The abundance of media? The number of state entities that have to be dealt with vs the number of provinces? The geographic dispersion of the population? You've ignored all of these points. But you harp on the 'passion' of the opponents? What you are really saying is the 'anti-gay' fervor of the opponents. You can accept the anti-gay enthusiasm of the American people opposed but you can't accept any of the reasons I listed in the beginning of this paragraph?
You bounce from one subject to another making it impossible to debate you as you are constantly running away from me.
"Oregon is a fairly liberal state (or what passes for liberal in USA), so I assume a comfortable majority of the population supports civil union. Still they have not been able to legalize civil unions because of a small but committed, passionate and noisy minority.
If in a liberal state as Oregon they are having so much difficulty in getting civil unions, imagine how difficult the task would be in the Bible Belt. It is a near impossible task."
If the majority of people in Oregon or any other state were in favor of Civil Unions, all it would take would be to vote to make it legal. A minority unless they control what gets put on a ballot (which is illegal) cannot stop a vote on the topic from being submitted to the voters. Something is wrong with your argument there. As for getting a law passed in the so called Bible Belt it would be impossible.
If in a liberal state as Oregon they are having so much difficulty in getting civil unions, imagine how difficult the task would be in the Bible Belt. It is a near impossible task."
If the majority of people in Oregon or any other state were in favor of Civil Unions, all it would take would be to vote to make it legal. A minority unless they control what gets put on a ballot (which is illegal) cannot stop a vote on the topic from being submitted to the voters. Something is wrong with your argument there. As for getting a law passed in the so called Bible Belt it would be impossible.
If the majority of people in Oregon or any other state were in favor of Civil Unions, all it would take would be to vote to make it legal.
Ironsides, I was only vaguely aware of the situation in Oregon. So I looked it up.
Civil union legislation was introduced in 2005. It was passed by the Democrat controlled Senate and the Democratic Governor supported it. However, it was killed by the Republican controlled House.
Democrats gained control of the House in 2006. However, even then apparently there were not enough votes in the House to pass Civil Union. So Democrats introduced the next best legislation, domestic partnership.
It was passed and signed by the government in 2008, by some Republican support. Domestic partnership isn't as good as civil union, there are important differences.
I am not really that familiar with how the system works in Oregon. However, I do know that in spite of being a liberal state, they had a great deal of difficulty in approving civil union.
Apparently neighbouring Washington (another supposedly liberal state) also has domestic partnership, not civil union (like they have in Vermont, New Jersey or New Hampshire). Currently only a handful of states have civil unions (which gives gays most of the rights given by marriage).
Even in supposedly liberals states, it isn't easy to pass civil union legislation. So gays do have a difficult and long road ahead of them when it comes to equality.
Ironsides, I was only vaguely aware of the situation in Oregon. So I looked it up.
Civil union legislation was introduced in 2005. It was passed by the Democrat controlled Senate and the Democratic Governor supported it. However, it was killed by the Republican controlled House.
Democrats gained control of the House in 2006. However, even then apparently there were not enough votes in the House to pass Civil Union. So Democrats introduced the next best legislation, domestic partnership.
It was passed and signed by the government in 2008, by some Republican support. Domestic partnership isn't as good as civil union, there are important differences.
I am not really that familiar with how the system works in Oregon. However, I do know that in spite of being a liberal state, they had a great deal of difficulty in approving civil union.
Apparently neighbouring Washington (another supposedly liberal state) also has domestic partnership, not civil union (like they have in Vermont, New Jersey or New Hampshire). Currently only a handful of states have civil unions (which gives gays most of the rights given by marriage).
Even in supposedly liberals states, it isn't easy to pass civil union legislation. So gays do have a difficult and long road ahead of them when it comes to equality.
Last edited:
"Civil unions but not marriage," is the cheap cop-out position. It allows you to feel ethical while still being a bigot.
Imagine if instead of giving the right to vote to women we gave them the right to hand in a ballot. Along with this, all the election legislation would carry this two tier language where men are allowed to vote or to hand in a ballot but women are only allowed to hand in a ballot. The language would be different in both sections and so a judge in our common law society would be forced to interpret it differently, since the legislators must have made the language distinct for a reason. You would be forced to say, "Women cannot vote in Canada, but they have something just as good, they are equal to men." Which should sound hollow and hypocritical.
That is merely legislating the idea that they are a class apart while making yourself feel good about it.
Imagine if instead of giving the right to vote to women we gave them the right to hand in a ballot. Along with this, all the election legislation would carry this two tier language where men are allowed to vote or to hand in a ballot but women are only allowed to hand in a ballot. The language would be different in both sections and so a judge in our common law society would be forced to interpret it differently, since the legislators must have made the language distinct for a reason. You would be forced to say, "Women cannot vote in Canada, but they have something just as good, they are equal to men." Which should sound hollow and hypocritical.
That is merely legislating the idea that they are a class apart while making yourself feel good about it.
Note that the Pew survey was not meant to refute your contention that the USA is less gay friendly than Canada and Europe. It was intended to refute your latest contention that gay rights are a long way off in the USA.
RanchHand, and exactly how did it refute my contention? Gays are a long way off from achieving true equality in USA.
Really? How about the diversity of the population?
RanchHand, it may come as news to you, but Canadian population is at least as diverse as US population. Toronto is fully as diverse as New York. Minorities (Hindus, Muslims etc.) got involved to the fullest extent in the gay marriage debate. I remember one small Islamic organization, which supported same sex marriage.
The size of the population? The abundance of media? The number of state entities that have to be dealt with vs the number of provinces?
And what do all these have to do with the question of gay marriage? These factors did not keep abortion from being legal, one decision by the Supreme Court and abortion was legal everywhere.
But you harp on the 'passion' of the opponents? What you are really saying is the 'anti-gay' fervor of the opponents.
The problem here is the innate conservatism of American people. The anti-gay fervor is symptomatic of conservatism, and not the cause of it..
Indeed, on almost every social issue (abortion, homosexuality interracial marriage, theory of evolution etc.) opinion polls indicate that Americans are more Conservative than Canadians. And that is the fundamentals reason why gays have such a difficult road ahead of them. Diversity of population, size of population, number of states etc. and only of marginal importance.
RanchHand, and exactly how did it refute my contention? Gays are a long way off from achieving true equality in USA.
Really? How about the diversity of the population?
RanchHand, it may come as news to you, but Canadian population is at least as diverse as US population. Toronto is fully as diverse as New York. Minorities (Hindus, Muslims etc.) got involved to the fullest extent in the gay marriage debate. I remember one small Islamic organization, which supported same sex marriage.
The size of the population? The abundance of media? The number of state entities that have to be dealt with vs the number of provinces?
And what do all these have to do with the question of gay marriage? These factors did not keep abortion from being legal, one decision by the Supreme Court and abortion was legal everywhere.
But you harp on the 'passion' of the opponents? What you are really saying is the 'anti-gay' fervor of the opponents.
The problem here is the innate conservatism of American people. The anti-gay fervor is symptomatic of conservatism, and not the cause of it..
Indeed, on almost every social issue (abortion, homosexuality interracial marriage, theory of evolution etc.) opinion polls indicate that Americans are more Conservative than Canadians. And that is the fundamentals reason why gays have such a difficult road ahead of them. Diversity of population, size of population, number of states etc. and only of marginal importance.
"The problem here is the innate conservatism of American people"
"Diversity of population, size of population, number of states etc. and only of marginal importance"
This is exactly the heredity vs environment argument. The fact that a small majority of Americans favor gay marriage and gay civil unions is not in our genes. Conservatism is not an inherited trait Im afraid.
Sir,
Found this definition, now I understand why the word "marriage" has to be used. Civil Union is not in the Constitution. Much easier to add protection that way.
What's the Difference?
The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.
According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
Found this definition, now I understand why the word "marriage" has to be used. Civil Union is not in the Constitution. Much easier to add protection that way.
What's the Difference?
The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.
According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
Last edited:
Yes, discrimination is in fact a contagious disease of the mind that can be eradicated, unlike homosexuality.
That what I thought so too, originally, but it is not. One significant difference is that domestic partnership is valid only in that particular state, while a civil union could be valid all over the country (if the other state decides to honour it).
Currently there is a famous case going on in Virginia, involving a lesbian couple who entered into civil union in Vermont (later they split up and one of them moved to Virginia). Virginia court has acknowledged the authority of Vermont Supreme court, and upheld the custody order in the civil union, even though Virginia law forbids gay marriage and civil unions.
Last edited:
Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation.
Ironsides, you are right, of course. Not only that, but they won’t get any benefits federally. There is a big difference between Canada legalizing gay marriage and Massachusetts or Connecticut legalizing gay marriage. In Canada, marriage is regulated federally, so when federal government legalized marriage, that legalized it all over Canada, and gays now get exactly the same rights as heterosexuals.
When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, that only legalizes it as far as Massachusetts is concerned. Federally it is not recognized. Also other states don’t recognize it. So presumably if a gay married couple moves to say Texas or Mississippi, they won’t have any rights there, since the marriage is not recognized there.
So the fact that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts does not mean that gays over there now have equal rights, they are still second class citizens as far as country as a whole is concerned.
I would hope that now you recognize how difficult is the road ahead for gays. Even if they manage to overturn the constitutional amendment in California, that still won’t give them equal right sin California.
Ironsides, you are right, of course. Not only that, but they won’t get any benefits federally. There is a big difference between Canada legalizing gay marriage and Massachusetts or Connecticut legalizing gay marriage. In Canada, marriage is regulated federally, so when federal government legalized marriage, that legalized it all over Canada, and gays now get exactly the same rights as heterosexuals.
When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, that only legalizes it as far as Massachusetts is concerned. Federally it is not recognized. Also other states don’t recognize it. So presumably if a gay married couple moves to say Texas or Mississippi, they won’t have any rights there, since the marriage is not recognized there.
So the fact that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts does not mean that gays over there now have equal rights, they are still second class citizens as far as country as a whole is concerned.
I would hope that now you recognize how difficult is the road ahead for gays. Even if they manage to overturn the constitutional amendment in California, that still won’t give them equal right sin California.
I resent this attitude. You also have no real experience with Texas. I am 100% Texan, native born. I can assure you that you will not be lynched or dragged behind a truck if you are gay. You take one nutcase and vastly overgeneralize it to include the entire state. That's the way children think.:roll:
Uncle
I did not say that I will be lynched or dragged behind a truck. If you read my post properly I specifically said that I will NOT be lynched.
However, can you deny that until recently sodomy was a felony in Texas, punishable by 10 years of imprisonment? And that when the law was challenged in the courts, Texas government fought any attempts to overturn it tooth and nail, going all the way to the Supreme Court?
Eventually Supreme Court overturned the Texas Sodomy law. But Texas government wanted to keep the law on its statute book (otherwise it wouldn’t have fought it tooth and nail). It is all a fact, unclepercy, there is no point in denying it, at least Texas government, if not the Texans, have a hostile attitude towards days.
"Texas (George Bush’s Texas) is famous for its anti-homosexual hatred, they have laws on the books trashing homosexuality and they are not afraid to use them.
Homosexuality used to be a crime in Texas punishable by 10 years of imprisonment. A few years ago, police, acting on an anonymous tip, raided a house, broke down the door, stormed inside and caught a couple in a homosexual act. The couple was charged with homosexuality and imprisoned (eventually released on bail)."
I now know more than I ever wanted to know about anti-gay law in Texas since you began this thread with the above quote. Sodomy laws in Texas were overturned six years ago. So how many years ago were the people you mention above released on bail for their behavior? How many years prior to the overturning of Texas law? Were they released on bail for their crime 10 years ago? Is this when your example happend?
If George Bush's Texas is still famous for it's "anti-homosexual hatred" what are the anti-homosexual laws still on the books that express this hatred? Or do you mean the Texas citizens are famous for their anti-homosexual hatred, regardless of the laws? You rarely provide links to any source to substantiate your claims. Could you provide links this time to whatever you are using to make your assertion that either the Texas government or the Texas citizens are famous for anti-homosexual hatred today. Not 10 or 20 years ago. I assume we are both talking about the present.
Homosexuality used to be a crime in Texas punishable by 10 years of imprisonment. A few years ago, police, acting on an anonymous tip, raided a house, broke down the door, stormed inside and caught a couple in a homosexual act. The couple was charged with homosexuality and imprisoned (eventually released on bail)."
I now know more than I ever wanted to know about anti-gay law in Texas since you began this thread with the above quote. Sodomy laws in Texas were overturned six years ago. So how many years ago were the people you mention above released on bail for their behavior? How many years prior to the overturning of Texas law? Were they released on bail for their crime 10 years ago? Is this when your example happend?
If George Bush's Texas is still famous for it's "anti-homosexual hatred" what are the anti-homosexual laws still on the books that express this hatred? Or do you mean the Texas citizens are famous for their anti-homosexual hatred, regardless of the laws? You rarely provide links to any source to substantiate your claims. Could you provide links this time to whatever you are using to make your assertion that either the Texas government or the Texas citizens are famous for anti-homosexual hatred today. Not 10 or 20 years ago. I assume we are both talking about the present.