Melissa Etheridge to Stop Paying Taxes Due to Prop 8

[Sewer Bull]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

It's Krang's right to do that, isn't it? A number of people have been banned from this forum, presumably for valid reasons.

Sorry, but "gay marriage" is no more a right that it is a right to have multiple spouses. The government does have the right to say who can marry whom; and no, religion has nothing to do with it. At the end of Gilbert and Sullivan's H. M. S. Pinafore, Sir Joseph marries his first cousin (her idea), which was legal in Britain, at least at the time. I don't believe it is legal here. If gay marriage is a right, then we are real dinosaurs for not allowing cousins to marry as well.

Banning marriages between cousins has some scientific purposes. On the other hand tho' - why not let them have it as well? It's people's choice if they want to deal with crippled kids or not, as long as they don't sue the state for that.

As for the institution of marriage... I've always considered it (along with several benefits going along with it) as some sort of social incentive to make people procreate and raise their kids. Obviously, gay people wouldn't reproduce (let's leave the cases of adoptions and children conceived with earlier partners out of that), but on the other hand, infertile straight people wouldn't as well. Everyone should possible get through fertility test to get an attestation for marriage and then make sure to conceive at least one brat within two years after getting hitched - because that's what one man and one woman are needed for.

If we agree on the existence of "fruitless straight marriages", then I don't see any reason gay people can't marry as well.

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

I don't get why marriage is such a huge deal, no one said gay people can't live together and be married, just not in the legal sense.

Taxation, inheritance, hospital visits etc.

[Mecha Cow]

Homosexuality is not the same thing as or comparable to incest, or polygamy, or bestiality, or whatever the f*ck else you want to throw around. This is not a matter of opinion, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is wrong. These are just more excuses to try and justify a bigoted, antiquated train of thought. Enough.

And just because the government says something does not make it right, or true. For the longest time the government said black people couldn't vote either. This isn't even an argument; we know it's not legal, that's the whole point of the issue. And no, civil unions are not the same thing, and homosexuals should not have to 'settle' for them. 'Seperate but equal' is not equal.

but "gay marriage" is no more a right that it is a right to have multiple spouses

In California it was, before they had themselves a little do-over and had Prop. 8 'eliminate' that right.

[Machias Banshee]

I was very surprised by the outcome of this one proposition. What really surprised me was the exit polls concerning who had voted for and against it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27584685/

Apparently the black and Latino votes were Major factors in the prop passing. I learned back in school that the Hispanic population is Very religious... this was one of the primary factors in their votes...


I'm not going to touch the whole moral thing about marriage, cuz no matter what happens, Nobody is ever going to be happy...


Now, as for the tax thing... I'm sure many people will say 'right on!' to the whole thing (I prefer low taxes), but the Democrats-in-charge and their support of paying higher taxes might not be so sympathetic in this situation. Miss Etheridge might find herself getting tossed into debtors' prison.

[GK Punk]

I'm sure she's expecting that, to be honest.

[Mecha Cow]

Nobody is ever going to be happy

There's also plenty of people who are not happy about having a black president. Let's not pretend people like this should be taken into consideration.

[poiuytre]

I believe in the sanctity of marriage but I also believe homosexual couples can uphold it just fine. One of the stereotypes people hold against gay people is that they are promiscuous and are incapable of commitment. Why would you take away something that promotes commitment?

Originally Posted by Mecha Cow

No. This excuse gets thrown around far too often. There is nothing democratic about this. Many wrongs don't make a right.

I can't agree with this. As bad as the whole ordeal is, it absolutely is democratic and claiming otherwise is simply incorrect.

[Mecha Cow]

To take rights away from people just because the 'majority' says so is a perversion of the democratic core principle of political and social equality. Regardless of semantic issues my point was that the concept of democracy should stop being used as a cover for what quite simply is discrimination.

[poiuytre]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Cow. However to many people this is an issue of morality and not equality. It's hard to define rights and wrongs in this kind of situation. They think their point of view doesn't discriminate. They think every single person has a right to get married, given they do it with a partner of the opposite sex.

They have their beliefs to hide behind and the widespread definition of marriage on their side. The only way out is to take away all the legal benefits away from marriage and make all unions the civil unions homosexuals have access too. People could still get married, but it would legally be in name only.

[Jester]

I think that's it. To people of faith (I lump myself in that category) marriage is more than just a legally binding contract, but a God-ordained ceremony since man is to leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and they become one. Marriage, as we see it is defined by God, and that's where the idea that homosexual marriages are against God's plan, YET it is really not the governments place to impose a set religious distinction on marriage. I'm beginning to see now that marriage is no longer held with that kind of honor, considering the rise in pre-nubs, contacts, and divorces. It's a purely legal issue. And as such, homosexuals should not be any different, under the law. That said, pastors who feel they can not preside over such marriages due to their personal religious beliefs should not be demonized, since religiously speaking, as a divinely inspired ordination, marriage is one man/one woman for life.

[Mecha Cow]

However to many people this is an issue of morality and not equality. It's hard to define rights and wrongs in this kind of situation. They think their point of view doesn't discriminate. They think every single person has a right to get married, given they do it with a partner of the opposite sex.

I'm aware of that, but just because their behavior stems from ignorance rather than malice does not make it right. They are free to think whatever they want, as long as they realise everyone else is as well. That is what democracy is.

I don't think anyone is asking Christian pastors to wed homosexual couples if they don't want to. But for them to respect or at the very least accept that other people feel differently is not and should never be too much to ask.

[Anarky]

Originally Posted by Jester

I think that's it. To people of faith (I lump myself in that category) marriage is more than just a legally binding contract, but a God-ordained ceremony since man is to leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and they become one. Marriage, as we see it is defined by God, and that's where the idea that homosexual marriages are against God's plan, YET it is really not the governments place to impose a set religious distinction on marriage. I'm beginning to see now that marriage is no longer held with that kind of honor, considering the rise in pre-nubs, contacts, and divorces. It's a purely legal issue. And as such, homosexuals should not be any different, under the law. That said, pastors who feel they can not preside over such marriages due to their personal religious beliefs should not be demonized, since religiously speaking, as a divinely inspired ordination, marriage is one man/one woman for life.

I never planned to demonize anyone. Last of all the clerics. For all I care, they may do whatever the hell they please. Marry a gay couple? Sure thing. Refuse to marry them? Sure, if it pleases his/her holiness.

But seeing as "Eternal love" and "til death do us part" lasts for an average of 2.4 years these days, it's more of an advanced "Let's date" and then everyone goes his or her separate ways, it's sadly more of a piece of paper you get to be hip and cool.

Basically, there are two ways of marrying. One's the one in church. Eternal love and all that stuff you mentioned. Bye mom, hello replacement mom I may now have sex with and all that. That's up to the church and whatever the church says is none of my business, I admit, but still, it's their world and they know better what to do with it than I do.

Then there's the "let's pay less taxes and be able to visit each other when we're in the ICU and dying" kind of marriage that happens on a state-level. And that should be allowed for everyone. Everyone should be able to get that and live it to the point where they want to live it to.

There, my two cents on religious marriages versus marrying at the office.

[Roseangelo]

I can understand that people are upset about the proposition passing, but I don't understand what they expect to accomplish by protesting something that was determined by a majority vote. And I don't just mean Melissa Etheridge inviting the IRS to her door; people have also been holding protests in San Francisco and LA streets (surprise). The people in LA are protesting a Mormon church that supported the proposition and spent a lot of money campaigning for it. Ok... so what? It really just comes off as these people being sore losers.

There are legal channels to go through get the desired outcome. They should spend their time and energy doing that and come up with a better campaign of their own. Storming through LA isn't going to change the minds of any of the people who voted for Prop 8 next time something similar shows up on a ballot (and it will).

And no, Obama isn't going to swing into California and make gay marriage legal. This is a State matter, not a Federal matter, so he couldn't do anything if he wanted to (and there's no evidence that he would want to).

[Anarky]

I'm pretty sure that those legal ways are being taken as well at the moment, but hey, you know and understand outrage, right? So they're outraging at the moment. You could outrage around with them too, if you still have rage left.

And it's not everyone who's outraging at the moment. Etheridge is giving interviews, others are on offices, seeing how they can reverse that and get their rights back... Many people can do many things. And some of those many are razing LA to the ground, poisoning the wells and raping the virgins of the city... oh, the humanity.

[Mecha Cow]

but I don't understand what they expect to accomplish by protesting something that was determined by a majority vote

Raising awareness.

It really just comes off as these people being sore losers.

I guess they should all be 'good sports' about it? There's a difference between being a 'sore loser' and being upset at being treated like a second-class citizen.

Originally Posted by Mecha Cow

Raising awareness.


I guess they should all be 'good sports' about it? There's a difference between being a 'sore loser' and being upset at being treated like a second-class citizen.

Thank you, Mecha Cow. Well said.

People like Roseangelo is what's wrong with America. And if they always had their ignorant way, black people would still be slaves and women would still be second-class citizens with no right to vote.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

It really just comes off as these people being sore losers.

Hmmm...

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

I'll admit that I would love to see him fail miserably just so I can go, <Nelson>"HAH HAH!"</Nelson> to all the Obama drones.

You were totally taking the high ground there, weren't you?

You're worse than, shall I say, Peter Laird?

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by Ryona

Thank you, Mecha Cow. Well said.

People like Roseangelo is what's wrong with America. And if they always had their ignorant way, black people would still be slaves and women would still be second-class citizens with no right to vote.

Sorry? Where did I ever say I was against gay marriage? I just think these protests are ill-ly directed.

Originally Posted by TheCure

You were totally taking the high ground there, weren't you?

Perhaps not the best choice of words, but it just comes from being tired of the endless fawning over Obama that I've been watching for the last four years, not out of actual wish for harm to anyone or anything.

Originally Posted by Roseangelo

Sorry? Where did I ever say I was against gay marriage? I just think these protests are ill-ly directed.

If you truly aren't against gay marriage, then I apologise.

[Scandia]

A similar measure was passed in my state. I voted NO on it. But unlike CA, FL had not even legalized same-sex marriage. In fact, FL does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children- which is very sad, considering that there are so many kids out there who need parents and homes. This state is otherwise moderate in every possible way- a swing state in pretty much every election. So why are they being so retrograde on this particular aspect, I do not know.

[Hannah]

I don't know how anyone can try and justify this with the "marriage is a religious ceremony" bullsh*t. I am atheist, so does that mean I shouldn't have the right to get married?

And how can anyone say that taxes have nothing to do with this? It's explained as simply as possible in the quote.

Anyway, Mecha's said everything I was thinking, and he's said it well.