It’s a joke to say Republicans are patriotic. They are racist, sexist, homophobic religious nuts who ran this country into the ground.

Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM

on the contrary…..
If you are able for a moment to pull your head out from where it is you poo consider the following.
1. Republicans are for less government,not more government that gave us our current economic mess,starting with Clinton ,progressing through Fannie and Freddie by way of Franklin(stock must go higher)Raines.
2. If I see no value in having children indoctrinated with Gay this and that,rainbow coalition this and that, why do I have to ? I dont care what you do behind closed doors, whether you have sex with animals, yourself or 12 other people.I have the right not to hear about that. I dont go into the streets yelling about the sex between a man and a woman, its private, and nonya business.
3.The republican party, being sooooo racist, elected A.Lincoln to the presidency and freed blacks from slavery. Wanna see some real racists? look at (D)Robert Byrd, West Virginia Senator,(D)George C. Wallace, governor of Alabama, look up and see how tolerant these individuals were.

Please refrain yourself from posting garbage here,you are making it look like all gay people are facists idiots.

…you are not patriotic when you want to deny other Americans basic human rights…

Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Where does it explicitly state in the U.S. constitution that there is a “Right” to marry?

..but I think the ballot initiatives defining marriage are more often proposed by groups opposing gay marriage than those favoring it dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Could be.
But then it would seem to follow that, if ban proponents would not propose it, the gay proponents would just drop it.
I don’t know if I buy that.

Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 6:45 PM

I’m referring to federal taxes. I think the CA domestic partnership status offers nearly everything that marriage does at the state level.

I don’t know why the groups do what they do, but I think the ballot initiatives defining marriage are more often proposed by groups opposing gay marriage than those favoring it.

dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Are you talking about Cali. Civil Union rights? It seems the reading of those grants all rights equal to marriage. If thats true, anyone with a Civil Union in Cali. should be exempt from tax burdens from transfer of property. do you know if that is the correct reading of the protects offered by C.U?
Or are you referring to a gay people who happen to be living together without the Civil Union protections?..if thats the case, it really is no different than 2 heteros living and investing together who transfer assets via a will.

Again..if thats the rub, working on the tax codes would seem the more fruitful course of action imo.

In states with no Civil Union provisions, that should be the angle of attack, but it seems to be totally avoided as an imortant goal in the gay community.
Why do you suppose that is?

FY Hanks. FY.

dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 4:50 PM

For the record, I think same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples. But I also think that ‘marriage’ is a relationship between two people of the opposite sex; take away that aspect of the relationship and it becomes a different type of relationship. People who think ‘marriage’ is a relationship between any two people who love each other think that makes me a homophobe and I’m not. I don’t think they are ’second class citizens’, I don’t want to ‘tell them who they can love’ and I am not a bigot. I just define a word differently than they do.

What are some of the other issues that make SSM such a volatile problem?

Itchee Dryback on January 18, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Taxes have to be paid when a gain is realized. In the case of a house it is when you are granted an increase in your ownership share. For a gay couple this can happen with the death of one partner, but can also happen if they “marry” and one moves into the house and becomes a co-owner.

In the case of employee benefits, gay people have to pay a tax on health insurance if they get it from their partner’s employer.

The issue being fought over right now seems to be the legitimacy offered by the state when it uses the word marriage. I’m skeptical about the actual value of that issue for either side.

Creationism. For people to stupid to understand evolution.

Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:04 PM

I believe you mean ‘too stupid to understand evolution.’

Normally I don’t correct someone’s spelling or grammar, since it’s not exactly my forte. But if you’re going to call someone stupid, you should do so in a way that doesn’t make you look like an idiot.

===========================================================

oh boo hoo some old bigot had a styrofoam cross ripped from her hands, big deal.

It’s called assault and it is a big deal.

it’s not like someone is trying to take away her right to marry, i mean, she can’t procreate either but she still can….

Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Find a man willing to marry you and go to a justice of the peace. You can get married.

==========================================================

a ballot box win is inevitable, but i doubt your “separate but equal” law will stand in the courts.

It’s not separate but equal. It’s a different license to recognize a different type of relationship.

oh, and the courts get the final say, they protect the rights of all californians from the tyranny of the church

Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

The people get the final say. We can amend the constitution.

Bobbertsan on January 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM

I think gay advocates would have been better off pushing for civil union laws that were completely on par with marriage. I’m guessing there is debate within various gay political groups over that question.

The IRS doesn’t pay attention to the state code and taxes the couple separately. Inheritance taxes are a big issue.

dedalus on January 18, 2009 at 1:06 AM

1. That’s what I wanted to establish. Same sex marriage advocates who claim that this is an issue that should be decided by the states aren’t being entirely honest.

2. Itchee Dryback is right. Why not just reform inheritance tax laws?

Noneya,
I must have hit a nerve, but then, I never see cowards like you in public, only on the internet. I would BET you are too ignorant to know Barrack Obama is against gay marriage and if you even BOTHERED to vote, you probably voted for him. Noneya, stupid IS as stupid does.

nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM

first you complain about “spineless gays who protested against churches and assault old women” then say you never see “cowards like you in public”. well, which is it?

I suggest that if you want the Amendment to California’s Constitution changed, you attempt to further amend the State’s Constitution because any attempt in court will be ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUIONAL.

nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM

a ballot box win is inevitable, but i doubt your “separate but equal” law will stand in the courts. oh, and the courts get the final say, they protect the rights of all californians from the tyranny of the church

nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM

oh boo hoo some old bigot had a styrofoam cross ripped from her hands, big deal. it’s not like someone is trying to take away her right to marry, i mean, she can’t procreate either but she still can….

Noneya,
How typical you are of the smarmy left. Do yourself a favor, educate yourself before you make a larger fool of yourself…. you might start with the U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers and then the California Constitution.
Facts have a nasty way of making leftists like you gag.

nelsonknows on January 18, 2009 at 3:45 P

uh, ok i did and nowhere in any of those does it say that gays are second-class citizens. so why do religious nuts continue to treat us as such?

Noneya on January 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM

O.K., maybe it was an honest mistake.

The post of yours I was responding to, just made..imo..a bunch of simplistic and predictable declarations of “fact” with no supporting evidence.

I responded by mimicking the chants and tomes of the global warming religionists.
Just a little sarc on a Sunday.