Obama-Marriage Debate - Somerset, KY

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Somerset, KY.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Somerset is not with Obama on gay marriage
Not at all
 
92
Yes, all the way
 
65
I'm on the fence
 
1

Vote now in Somerset:

zipyourlip

Sheridan, AR

#1072 Jan 12, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
Let me bring people back to reality for just a moment. What we are talking about here is not the religious institution of marriage, but instead of the civil contract. In order to prevent a couple from entering into said contract the state/government has to have a vested interest to do so. Can someone give me that reason?
Seems to me that the legal case that is coming to the Supreme Court had something to do with inheritance taxes. DOMA is at the core of it.

“Taste great in milk!”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

.

#1073 Jan 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is more than a contract.
I've heard They're trying to make it a dessert topping, and a floor wax as well.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1074 Jan 12, 2013
zipyourlip wrote:
<quoted text>Seems to me that the legal case that is coming to the Supreme Court had something to do with inheritance taxes. DOMA is at the core of it.
That is a part of it....most people do not realize that once they become married they are entitled to over 1500+ state/federal benefits. Most also are not familiar with what they are, but if you ask any GLBT person that has lost their partner to death/tragedy you will find out exactly what they are missing, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Brian the Troll likes to give his one liners, but when asked for a serious answer to my question he will either change the subject or leave the forum.....My guess is that he will change the subject.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1075 Jan 13, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
So what is the reason that state has a vested interest in preventing same-sex couple from entering into the contract?
Marriage has always been gender integrated until the 21st century. Same sex marriage creates a radically new standard of gender segregation in marriage. If you love harmony and hate apartheid; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1076 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage has always been gender integrated until the 21st century. Same sex marriage creates a radically new standard of gender segregation in marriage. If you love harmony and hate apartheid; keep marriage one man and one woman.
That is not a state vested interest....Wrong answer Brian the Troll one liners.....Please try again.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1077 Jan 13, 2013
The state hs a vested interest in a stable home for children:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/fren...
Protests against French President Francois Hollande’s proposal to allow same-sex marriage drew hundreds of thousands of people into the streets in Paris.
“There are many people who are worried about this law,” Laurent Wauquiez, a minister under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, said today on Europe 1 radio.“Do we have to destroy the family and the place of children in it? We must pay attention to the place of children.” Wauquiez joined the demonstration.
About 340,000 people joined today’s marches, according to police estimates, while organizers indicated a turnout of more than 800,000. Protesters dancing to hip-hop music carried pink flags with white images of the traditional family: man, woman and two children.

...53 percent oppose adoption for gay couples, according to a survey published Jan. 10. CSA, another polling company, found Jan. 11 that 52 percent favor gay marriage and the same proportion oppose adoption by same-sex couples.
Former PresidentSarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement party is shifting its stance to calling for a referendum on the matter.
“This doesn’t just concern same-sex couples, it’s a fundamental question for society,” former Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.“Instead of presenting this law to parliament, the president should allow the people to decide. No one can argue with that.”

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1078 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The state hs a vested interest in a stable home for children:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-13/fren...
Protests against French President Francois Hollande’s proposal to allow same-sex marriage drew hundreds of thousands of people into the streets in Paris.
“There are many people who are worried about this law,” Laurent Wauquiez, a minister under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, said today on Europe 1 radio.“Do we have to destroy the family and the place of children in it? We must pay attention to the place of children.” Wauquiez joined the demonstration.
About 340,000 people joined today’s marches, according to police estimates, while organizers indicated a turnout of more than 800,000. Protesters dancing to hip-hop music carried pink flags with white images of the traditional family: man, woman and two children.
...53 percent oppose adoption for gay couples, according to a survey published Jan. 10. CSA, another polling company, found Jan. 11 that 52 percent favor gay marriage and the same proportion oppose adoption by same-sex couples.
Former PresidentSarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement party is shifting its stance to calling for a referendum on the matter.
“This doesn’t just concern same-sex couples, it’s a fundamental question for society,” former Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.“Instead of presenting this law to parliament, the president should allow the people to decide. No one can argue with that.”
Nice try but the state does not care about that. Reason being we still allow divorce. You don't have to be married to have kids. You can have kids via invitro.....Do I need to go on why the state does not have a vested interest in this issue? Please try again....BTW if you find one might want to let the lawyers know this as well.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1079 Jan 13, 2013
Divorce helps keep consent alive in marriage; most same sex marriage supporters fail to understand that fact. A child of divorce still has a mother and a father even if they don't live in the same building.

Most same sex marriage supporters believe in in vitro reproduction, cloning, parthenogenesis and science fiction more than they understand human nature.

Keep marriage as one man and one woman or they'll go after the consent requirement and force taxpayers to provide reproductive medical treatments for same sex couples next.
Jerry Sandusty

Huntsville, TN

#1080 Jan 13, 2013
Gays molest little boys.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1081 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Divorce helps keep consent alive in marriage; most same sex marriage supporters fail to understand that fact. A child of divorce still has a mother and a father even if they don't live in the same building.
Most same sex marriage supporters believe in in vitro reproduction, cloning, parthenogenesis and science fiction more than they understand human nature.
Keep marriage as one man and one woman or they'll go after the consent requirement and force taxpayers to provide reproductive medical treatments for same sex couples next.
Are you stating you can't find a reason the state should prevent SSM? I am not saying in what you consider moral superiority can't, but can you give a reason the state can. All you have done is posted rhetoric, but nothing that the state should care about. Are you trolling again Brian the one liners?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1082 Jan 14, 2013
Here's a good list of reasons from a gay man, to keep marriage male/female:

Xavier Bongibault, a member of a group called Plus Gay Sans Mariage -- More Gay Without Marriage -- said the demonstration is not for the homophobic.

He said many people who are gay or support gay rights believe marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals.

"In France marriage is not a contract about love: it is a contract that creates the framework for the protection of children. I believe a child must have a mother and father," he said. "Everyone has the right to get married. I am homosexual but if I wanted to get married I could find a woman. Marriage has certain conditions, the main one of which is that it has to be between a man and woman."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1083 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Here's a good list of reasons from a gay man, to keep marriage male/female:
Xavier Bongibault, a member of a group called Plus Gay Sans Mariage -- More Gay Without Marriage -- said the demonstration is not for the homophobic.
He said many people who are gay or support gay rights believe marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals.
"In France marriage is not a contract about love: it is a contract that creates the framework for the protection of children. I believe a child must have a mother and father," he said. "Everyone has the right to get married. I am homosexual but if I wanted to get married I could find a woman. Marriage has certain conditions, the main one of which is that it has to be between a man and woman."
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...
Nice try but once again that is not a reason for the state since I have already posted an answer to this and where the state stands. Try again Brian! BTW I can post for hetrosexual people why it should be allowed that does not an argument make!

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1084 Jan 14, 2013
Formal marriage is nothing more than a contract. A license is nothing more than an official permission. By saying you need government permission for adults to enter into harmless contracts, you're very clueless, and either ignorant of economics or a bigot, if not both.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1085 Jan 15, 2013
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts; the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is more.

Same sex marriage brings a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before we had perfect gender integration. The Kentucky Constitution serves as a model for an Amendment to the US Constitution; protect marriage as male and female.

Level 3

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#1086 Jan 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts; the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is more.
Same sex marriage brings a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before we had perfect gender integration. The Kentucky Constitution serves as a model for an Amendment to the US Constitution; protect marriage as male and female.
You are aware that if the Supreme Court overturns DOMA this summer that the law in Kentucky and States like it will not be enforceable. I think this law will be overturned and the Supreme Court is going to see this law is out dated and should have never been signed into law in the first place.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1087 Jan 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts; the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is more.
Same sex marriage brings a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before we had perfect gender integration. The Kentucky Constitution serves as a model for an Amendment to the US Constitution; protect marriage as male and female.
Actually marriage is a contract and one given by the state. This means, one more time Brian the Troll one liners, the state has to have a vested interest in preventing SSM and the reason has to follow uniformity. You have yet to present an argument showing why the state should prevent it. Just tell us you think it is icky and you don't like it because you think you are morally superior than GLBT people. Your moral objections does not give legal clout to an argument.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1088 Jan 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts; the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is more.
Same sex marriage brings a new standard of gender segregation to marriage where before we had perfect gender integration. The Kentucky Constitution serves as a model for an Amendment to the US Constitution; protect marriage as male and female.
You assume the Supreme Court is always right. They're more wrong than they are right on many things. If the Supreme Court ruled that Obama can ban guns, would you support that? How about government-run healthcare? The Court can be wrong, and is so many times in our history. Bad argument on your part.

Also, you can't claim to protect marriage, then support banning marriage for certain people. The definition of marriage is arbitrary; but you claiming that marriage HAS to be a man and a woman, you are supporting that your definition of marriage must be enforced. You are the antithesis of sanctity of marriage because of this alone.
zipyourlip

Sheridan, AR

#1089 Jan 15, 2013
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders have signed on to spend up to $3 million to keep defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, according to a copy of their newly revised legal contract obtained by The Huffington Post.

House Republican leaders took over the legal defense of DOMA in the spring of 2011, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would no longer defend it on the grounds that they found it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders hired attorneys at the law firm Bancroft LLC to represent the House in court cases involving the federal ban on gay marriage -- all with taxpayer dollars.

On Jan. 4, Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Administration Committee, signed a revised contract with Bancroft LLC that increases the spending cap to $3 million to allow Bancroft attorneys to keep defending DOMA in various court cases. The revised contract also bears the signatures of Bancroft partner Paul Clement and Kerry Kircher, general counsel for the House of Representatives.

"It is further understood and agreed that, effective January 4, 2013, the aforementioned $2,750,000.00 cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding,$3,000,000.00, up on written notice of the General Counsel to the Contractor specifying that the General Counsel is legally liable," the contract reads.

A Boehner spokesman referred questions about increased spending on DOMA to the House Administration Committee. A spokeswoman for the committee did not immediately return a request for comment.

The revised contract comes on the heels of House Republican leaders inserting language into the rules package for the 113th Congress that authorizes the House legal team to keep paying outside counsel to defend DOMA. The rules package also states that the House legal team continues to "speak for" all House members in its defense of DOMA -- language that infuriated Democrats opposed to the matter. All but one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.), voted to pass the rules package, effectively endorsing the DOMA language. But a Jones spokesman told The Huffington Post that Jones' opposition wasn't DOMA-related.

UPDATE: Salley Wood, a spokeswoman for the House Administration Committee, said Miller signed off on the revised DOMA contract because she was "simply implementing the instructions included in ... the House rules package."

Wood pointed to the specific language in the rules package that authorizes the House legal advisory group to keep defending DOMA and "intervene in other cases" that may come up on the matter.

House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, sent a letter to Boehner later Tuesday voicing their opposition to sinking more money into DOMA's defense -- particularly given Republicans' calls for fiscal responsibility.

"We wish to strongly reaffirm our objections to the repeated actions by the Republican leadership to secretly and dramatically increase the contract between the House and outside counsel in arguing to uphold the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in more than a dozen cases," reads the letter from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

"It is the height of hypocrisy for House Republicans to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next," the letter continues. "With Republicans willing to take our economy and our country to the brink of default in the name of deficit reduction, there is simply no excuse for any Member of Congress to commit taxpayer dollars to an unnecessary -- and futile -- legal battle."
Think about it

Butler, KY

#1090 Jan 16, 2013
KennyKelly3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, you can't claim to protect marriage, then support banning marriage for certain people. The definition of marriage is arbitrary; but you claiming that marriage HAS to be a man and a woman, you are supporting that your definition of marriage must be enforced. You are the antithesis of sanctity of marriage because of this alone.
The problem with your type of thinking is that all definitions become arbitrary. I've argued face to face with your type and it never goes anywhere because you wouldn't even concede that a given word means what it means. You preach freedom, but sell chaos, in some cases. What society in history do you hold up as an example or at least closest to an example of what society should be.

(re-post, sums it up)
No one is saying that you can't smoke, drink, look at porn or be a homosexual. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't lie to society by legitimizing these behaviors and either leaving the impression or saying outright that there are no consequences to these activities.

If you call telling the truth (scientific truth) about dangerous behaviors forcing morality on someone then there is no hope for logic to prevail. To say that homosexuality is equal in everyway to heterosexuality and legitimize it by labeling it marriage is a lie. The marriage label is about legitimizing the behavior, period.
Again, no one is saying we are going to force you not to practice homosexuality. We are just saying that we shouldn't make a legal lie out of it and thus promote it as healthy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1091 Jan 16, 2013
LovehasNogender wrote:
You are aware that if the Supreme Court overturns DOMA this summer that the law in Kentucky and States like it will not be enforceable.
The Supreme Court has already reviewed the merits of defining marriage as one man and one woman. They've established the merits of Nelson and the State of Minnesota's right to keep marriage male/female.

.
LovehasNogender wrote:
I think this law will be overturned and the Supreme Court is going to see this law is out dated and should have never been signed into law in the first place.
If they ignore precedent; you might be right. If they follow law and apply it consistently; they'll protect marriage as the law decrees.

.
LovehasNogender wrote:
Actually marriage is a contract and one given by the state.
The Supreme Court has said marriage is more than a contract.

.
LovehasNogender wrote:
This means, one more time Brian the Troll one liners, the state has to have a vested interest in preventing SSM and the reason has to follow uniformity.
Nobody is preventing same sex marriage; we're preventing the state's recognition of any relationship other than one man and one woman as 'marriage'. You still have the freedom to have a wedding in a jurisdiction that permits same sex marriage. You have the right to a religious same sex marriage ceremony without criminal penalty. You may even ask employers, acquaintances and friends to treat you and your partner as if you were married.

DOMA does't infringe on your rights and it protects the state's interests in protecting marriage.

.
LovehasNogender wrote:
You have yet to present an argument showing why the state should prevent it.
I have presented thousands of arguments why the state should keep marriage one man and one woman. You have yet to recognize any argument as rational. That's your problem, not mine.

.
LovehasNogender wrote:
Just tell us you think it is icky and you don't like it
Some people want to protect marriage on emotional grounds; that's as valid as feeling 'same sex marriage is equality' or sympathy for a mascot victim group.

.
LovehasNogender wrote:
because you think you are morally superior than GLBT people. Your moral objections does not give legal clout to an argument.
I've never claimed to be superior to homosexuals; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Many homosexuals oppose changing the definition of marriage to license same sex marriage. I commend all marriage protectors for their moral superiority; especially GLBT people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 20 min chinwendu1 142,301
what do men really think about stretch marks (Aug '08) 4 hr Jshsyxyd 278
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 5 hr gladthelakeisback 27,402
Debate: Gay Marriage - Somerset, KY (Jul '10) 6 hr simple pleasures 850
Accident during somer nite cruise 13 hr showuporstayhome 5
4 word game (Jan '09) 20 hr Trouser Cough 2,191
*keep a word- drop a word* Game (Jul '11) 20 hr Red_Forman 11,410
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]