KevinDW78

I absolutely agree that there shouldn't be any laws involving "marriage" and only the concept of "civil unions" should exist for everyone, gay or straight. However, I am forced to wrestle with the issue that that seems damn near impossible right now (gosh I hate being pragmatic) but I have REAL rights right NOW that are being violated in a daily basis, and one option at least is feasible, while the other may never happen in my lifetime. So what should I do? Shut up and sit at the back of the bus until "someday" when "maybe" and "somehow" I will be finally recognized of these rights? Sorry, that's not true. "Civil unions" aren't good enough for immigration. There are a LOT of couples who are prevented from living with their loved ones because they can't get into the country. IF proper laws were to grant equality for everything, I couldn't care less WHAT it was called. You can call it "marriage" or "civil unions" or "bob" all I care about is getting to excercise those rights.

No we're not. The morgue? But that's exactly what you are suggesting we do! Instead of making sure that we DON'T ever become that poor person and that we always would have insurance or an agreement in place for mediacal care, we simply put our faith in that "someone" will help us. I would rather choose the former.

lol Erik, this forum already has a 60-page thread on that topic. Don't hijack this thread. Thank you.

Again, I don't disagree - and I explicitly stated that before. My objections were to Jake using the word "immoral" with regards to those who opposed prop 8 because they were framed as "gay rights" instead of "individual rights". This thread is full of them. Just go back and read it. Both I, MichaelH and DavidOdden listed a myriad of individual rights denied to gay couples.

Doctors earn lots of money due to their high skill level. They get to live in nice, big houses and drive expensive cars.

Which would make it shink real fast, wouldn't it? Only thing things that people really care (military, police, courts) about would get funded and the others would very quickly lose all funding and be closed. I also agree with the problems being raised as far as systems that allow corruption, favors, etc. I think the only way you'll eliminate that is to go with a federal government that gets revenue through fees for it's services and that's it. Consider criminals having to pay fines, court fees for filing suit, contract fees was another good sugestion. I also liked the diea of politicians paying a fee when elected. What about abolishing politician's receiving a salary altogether? I know they should be compensated for their work, but there has to be a better way to remove the "career politicians" and corruption that results.

Kendall has been very clear as to his reasons. You have not Mammon and continue to evade the question.

I had an interesting thought on this the other day. I forget the figure, but I know that the auto makers because of the unions have basically become quasi-welfare states, and the amount of money they pay for health insurance is so high that's it's the largest part of their account ledgers. Why not turn all that over to Obama's universal healthcare? The auto makers will see a boom in revenue!

Another point I don't think I saw anyone make - even in the argument of "you agreed to pay taxes when you bought your property" the government gets to change the terms of that agreement unilaterally without your consent whenever they wish. They can raise your taxes, impose new taxes, etc, none of which you may have "agreed" to when buying your property. Are these people arguing that not only are you agreeing to pay taxes by buying your property, but also granting the government unilateral power to tax you into oblivion come next year if it suits their whims?

lol if you ever want to move to Salt Lake City, I will hire you on the spot

I agree that precise language is important, my objection is that people coming to this thread and trying to aruge over using the phrase "gay rights" starts to creep into the territory of a straw man and deflecting the discussion from the actual topic of the OP. I object to anyone somehow suggesting that prop 8 wasn't something worth fighting because it's supporters use the phrase "gay rights" to describe it's subject. Should people in colorado be considered "immoral" (yes Jake used the word "immoral" with regards to opposers of prop 8) because they fought against that silly prop there dealing with zygotes because their supporters are fighting for "abortion rights" instead of framing it as "individual rights"? Or should be simply always consider it moral to always fight for something that is an individual right, regardless of how supporters may frame it? I am not denying the cause would be better served framing everyting as "individual" rights, but saying it's not valid unless you do is absurd to me. The fact is that Prop 8 was a battle to eliminate individual rights that specifically target gay people. If someone tried to pass a law saying that homosexuals can be persecuted for commiting homosexual acts, yes that is a violation of individual rights, but it also is explicitly targeting homosexuals. I don't see the difference here.

2,000 people protested outside the LDS (Mormon) church headquarters here in Salt Lake City last night. (The Mormon church funneled over $20 million into fighting for the passage of prop 8 in california). Just an FYI. The Mormon church does this every single time the issue of gay marriage comes up in any state. I wish they would just mind their own damn business.

ok I have a compromise. Students only in the public education system qualify for this requirement and in exchange for partial repayment for their sponging off tax money taken from me, they have to mow my lawn and wash my windows as "community service" ...Damn, just appoint me to a cabinet position already.

"Required" how? Are they going to deny diplomas to any high school student who doesn't comlpete their 50 hours? If so, get ready for the largest percentage of high school flunk-outs in the history of the country. I know it's been 12 years since I have been in high school, but I remember what high school students are like. How could anyone ever expect students to get off their lazy asses and off their video games to complete 50 hours of community service? You can't get a teenager to spend 20 minutes doing homework!

Dead fish? Is this guy a Mafia boss? he's Jewish not Siscilian lol

I was considering starting a thread on that subject too because I am curious to know people's reaction to the possible appointments of Volker or Geithner since I really don't know anything about them or what they would do. But this is as good a thread as any. So who are these people?

I agree. I had a habit of letting tense situations blow my top but I am getting a lot better now at simply biting my tongue and not allowing things to escalate by making myself immediately realize that nothing good will come from me losing my temper. That definately applies to me. More and more now I find myself saying "Spilt milk, Kevin" because I sometimes will dwell on regretting bad decisions I've made rather than just recognizing they were bad and why and then moving on. Now I just say "spilt milk" because there is nothing I can do to change the past, and focus my thoughts instead on how I am going to proceed in the future. because, after all, there is no use in crying over spilt milk... it could have been whiskey.

When he said "Madeline Albright's partner" I thought to myself, "Madeline Albright is a lesbian? That makes SO much sense now!" I dunno, "don't ask" and I "won't tell"

I like reading Dick Morris because he doesn't spin for one side or the other and just tells it like it is. He has an interesting piece out today showing all the people Obama has been selecting to be in his transition and administration don't represent "change" at all, they're the same Washington insiders from the Clinton era: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/11/07/...ngton-insiders/ This isn't the full article below but is just a part of the roll-call:

Mammon has already been asked explicitly several times before to answer this question. He won't. All he does is evade it whenever it comes up. So don't expect an answer to be forthcoming.

Try harder. What if one of them is not a U.S. citizen, but wants to gain permanent residence? Under current laws, the spouse would not be recognized and could not emigrate to the U.S. Also when one of them dies, their spouse does not automatically inherit their property. Gay couples would have to go through all sorts of legal hoops in order for a spouse to retain possession of his/her own house. As MichaelH noted - he had all sorts of legal issues just trying to get both their names legally on the mortgage. For many gay couples, this is an ongoing battle their entire lives. Visitation in a hospital, next of kin, probate laws, etc etc etc. It's this kind of ignorance that perpetuates uninformed heterosexual people to simply shrug and say "so what? Why is it such a big deal?" It has nothing to do with "ceremony" it has to do with current laws that prevent gay couples from living as a "couple" in the first place. There is more to being a "couple" then physical proximity.

ok, from now on, we'll annoyingly always write "individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of gay people" Stop making stupid semantic arguments if you're not going to make any contribution to the discussion. We all here are intelligent enough to know what we are talking about.

That's not a valid argument. By that reasoning, the Catholic Church can lose its tax exempt status for refusing to marry a Jewish couple. So..... what? We should be pragmatists now, all of a sudden?

Personally, I don't have objections to civil unions in place of marriage so long as it is just a matter of title. So long as whenever there is a law that applies to one, it applies to the other. (ex: immigration law is a large part of the gay marriage/civil-union debate) This was such an absolutely disgusting, reprehensible, and offensive thing to say. I seriously suggest you reconsider the implication of that statement.

That's an interesting point I hadn't realized.