patrick.net

G'Day,
You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Regards,
Woomera

kentm says

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes

Please give an example of where I did that.

kentm says

trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

Where did I invoke religion at all?

Quigley says

They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant.

That's what it looks like, yes. I can't help but admire the sheer Machiavellian art of it all, though:

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage are against "gay rights" (as if anyone asks what you do at night before you can vote).
3) Use gay marriage (in states that have it) as a legal precedent to financially attack religious groups you don't like.

I give concrete examples of (3) and I'm subjected to personal attacks (like that I supposedly called someone a 'faggot').

This is what I mean when I say the far-left is just as authoritarian and unhinged as the far right.

So Kentm and Curious2, you've made my point about not voting for Democrats. If Democrats actually went after the top 0.1% (like they're supposed to do) I might support them. But what has Obama done? He hasn't done anything to reign in the power of Big Finance that owns the government. See the Matt Taibbi articles. Rather, Obama has just given the homosexual special interest groups what they want (repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Apparently privacy and tolerance is *not* what they want, but rather a government "stamp of approval" which they use to go after (with the force of the state) people they don't like.

So no, Patnet readers. "Social issues" are *not* just phoney issues created out of thin air by Fox News and AM radio.

omerde says

You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

This would work if only by voting none of the above, no one got to hold the office. We could fire someone without replacing him with someone else. All votes from the empty chair are automatically set to no.

freak80 says

Where did I invoke religion at all?

I've concluded that your opposition to gay marriage and all opposition from the right is based solely on religious bigotry because you cannot answer any of the simple, honest, and straightforward questions I've asked regarding your position. No social conservative can because the only way to honestly answer the questions is with

I have no legal reasons to deny gays the right to marry. I just don't want them to because my fictitious god hates fags. Of course, this belief that a sky daddy hates fags is nothing more than a reflection of my own personal neurosis. But I am unwilling to admit that in public. This is why I cannot have an honest, rational discussion of gay marriage. I must always employee baseless fears and emotional manipulation, and I must stay away from reality as much as possible. Reality has a liberal bias.

Of course, if I am wrong about the above, then please, pretty please with sugar on top of it, will some conservative provide rational and honest answers to the questions I directed at freak80 including why the 14th Amendment either should be repealed, or does not apply to gay marriage like it does to interracial marriage, or why the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving vs. Virginia. These are the only three logical possibilities.

Dan8267 says

Patrick

Links to postings that are part of a thread with multiple page breaks are still not working. Example: http://patrick.net/?p=1214837#comment-851760

The link has to include the "c" parameter so I can calculate which page of comments to show. Then the hashtag jumps to the right part of that page. So for the example you gave, this should work:

http://patrick.net/?p=1214837&c=851760#comment-851760

The link has to include the "c" parameter so I can calculate which page of comments to show.

Is it possible to include the "c" parameter when you quote a post? Also, is the "c" parameter always the same as the "comment" parameter? If so, why would it be necessary?

freak80 says

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage

You keep reverting to the same thing even when I provide you links to the actual statutory definition of legal marriage, and you never answered my question. If the Republicans decree that only Baptist marriages will be recognized, or that Catholics will be restricted to marrying other Catholics (which is also the Vatican position), will you still say that marriage is a religious "institution" and the laws must simply administer your preferred religious restrictions? And what do you say to the religions and countries that do recognize same-sex marriage? Have those religions chosen the wrong God, because you know (or are) the only true one, and have those countries increased their risk of hurricanes? How do you get to own marriage as an "institution" with your definition being the only true one, no matter what the Constitution and the laws say? Why is your favored "tradition" the only one that matters, while others have their own traditions?

curious2 says

will you still say that marriage is a religious "institution" and the laws must simply administer your preferred religious restrictions?

Marriage is an inherently religious idea, I believe. That's why I say we just invoke "separation of church and state" and get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let individual religious groups decide who they will marry according to their own beliefs.

curious2 says

Have those religions chosen the wrong God, because you know (or are) the only true one, and have those countries increased their risk of hurricanes?

That's going off in a whole new direction. Who said anything about hurricanes?

curious2 says

Why is your favored "tradition" the only one that matters

What is my favored tradition? I don't understand.

freak80 says

Marriage is an inherently religious idea, I believe... What is my favored tradition? I don't understand.

You keep reverting back to your favored definition of "traditional marriage," no matter how many links I provide showing the legal definition of marriage. What I find especially strange is your unfounded and clearly false belief that marriage is inherently religious, even though I've already pointed out that marriage (including same-sex marriage) goes back further than any of the currently popular religions. Should there be a religious test to marriage, i.e. if you don't pray often enough your marriage gets taken away?

You also seem to ignore the importance of voters' opinions in deciding party platforms. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was repealed because (a) 70% of voters wanted it repealed, and (b) federal courts had declared it unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing it (and the Pentagon did stop, worldwide, then started again when the Obama administration filed an "emergency appeal"). You ignore all that and say it was catering to a special interest, when in fact it was merely following the law and the will of 70% of voters.

freak80 says

Who said anything about hurricanes?

Pat Robertson. He shares your belief that everything is religious and the law must follow the will of [his particular] omnipotent God, whom he exclusively speaks for and nobody else can hear except through him. He has warned specifically that hurricanes are divine wrath for not listening to The Word According to Pat.

curious2 says

no matter how many links I provide showing the legal definition of marriage.

You provided the link to a court decision of a state. I don't agree with the ruling. They argue under the same false premises that you do. The "conclusion" is already "built in" from the very beginning.

We shouldn't be surprised at that. Judges are politicians. It's what they do.

Again, I ask you: have you stopped beating your wife?

freak80 says

You provided the link to a court decision of a state.

...and links to the laws of your own state, and examples of whole countries (Canada, Hungary).

You never answer my questions, and instead you revert to your joke question about whether you've stopped beating your wife. Have you?

curious2 says

Should there be a religious test to marriage, i.e. if you don't pray often enough your marriage gets taken away?

My position is very clear to anyone reading this discussion: the government shouldn't be granting or taking away anyone's marriage. They shouldn't be in the business at all.

If we want "civil domestic contracts" simply in the interest of forming "households" then fine. I have no problem with that.

I'm not a fan of people suing churches just because they won't recognize certain "marriages."

How can I put it anymore straightforward than that?

Go ahead and have the "last word."

Dan8267 says

Is it possible to include the "c" parameter when you quote a post? Also, is the "c" parameter always the same as the "comment" parameter? If so, why would it be necessary?

The "c" parameter should be automatically included when you quote a post. If it does not happen, please send me an example so I can reproduce and fix it.

Yes, it is always the same as the "comment" parameter. The reason I need to put it in the URL twice is that the hash tag parameter (#comment-854783 for example) cannot be detected on the server side.

Indeed, why?

Both Romney and Obama are worse for economy.

Both are bad for human rights.

Both are sure to cause another disaster in Afghanistan.

Both will go on destroying American middle class and anything productive here.

There is only one difference: Romney went to Israel and put American interests on sale there. With Romney as a president now we'll get a guaranteed new war in Iran, which will turn to a disaster unseen yet. (Will end up much worse than Vietnam).

But than again, we are in California? Will our vote change anything? Obviously NO. So why should we vote?

curious2 says

Please read the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and section 10 of New York's Domestic Relations Law (which defines marriage as a civil contract), and reconsider your statement about marriage. Whatever your religious views might be, they do not excuse denying other Americans the equal protection of the laws. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts, nor can they be made strangers to the laws of their own country.

I have a question: civil contracts may include more than two parties. So is polygamist marriage is illegal? Why? Why nobody care about the rights of polygamists?

The "c" parameter should be automatically included when you quote a post. If it does not happen, please send me an example so I can reproduce and fix it.

I think I've copied URLs from the user comment history page, http://patrick.net/comments.php?a=8267&submit=Search

On that page, the URLs in the date fields after each post do not have the "c" parameter, just the "comment" anchor. The parameter should be added to those links.

Yes, it is always the same as the "comment" parameter. The reason I need to put it in the URL twice is that the hash tag parameter (#comment-854783 for example) cannot be detected on the server side.

Makes sense. There is a way to handle that though. If you have a HTTP request handler, you could query the HttpRequest object's URL parameter and determine if the comment anchor is present and treat it like a request parameter. That would make the c parameter unnecessary altogether.

Dan8267 says

I think I've copied URLs from the user comment history page, http://patrick.net/comments.php?a=8267&submit=Search

On that page, the URLs in the date fields after each post do not have the "c" parameter, just the "comment" anchor. The parameter should be added to those links.

You are right! Thanks for telling me about that. Fixed now.

Dan8267 says

you could query the HttpRequest object's URL parameter and determine if the comment anchor is present

No, I've checked the network traffic with tcpdump and the comment anchor is never even sent to the server. So there is no way to use the hash tag alone to find the right page of comments. But if you don't have the hash tag, then the browser does not jump to the right point. So I am forced to have both the c parameter in the URL (to find the right page of comments) and the hash tag (to make the browser scroll down to that comment).

freak80 says

If we want "civil domestic contracts" simply in the interest of forming "households" then fine. I have no problem with that.

I'm not a fan of people suing churches just because they won't recognize certain "marriages."

I like that. Determining whether you're forming a household or not is entirely up to the individual. What you call it is up to the individual. Something like the common law marriage stuff, if two unrelated people live together for X years, they are a couple.

If one wants to have a religious ceremony or secular ritual to formalize it in one's own mind, that's one's own decision.

No, I've checked the network traffic with tcpdump and the comment anchor is never even sent to the server.

Ah, yeah, that's right. The hash component of the page URL, everything following the # sign, is not sent from the browser to the server and is meant only for the browser to process. That's part of the W3C standard. Forgot about that.

thunderlips11 says

I like that. Determining whether you're forming a household or not is entirely up to the individual. What you call it is up to the individual. Something like the common law marriage stuff, if two unrelated people live together for X years, they are a couple.

Seems fair to me.

Write in Ron Paul on the ballot.
I am.

freak80 says

My position is very clear to anyone reading this discussion: the government shouldn't be granting or taking away anyone's marriage. They shouldn't be in the business at all... How can I put it anymore straightforward than that?
Go ahead and have the "last word."

Actually I agree with that position, but it wasn't clear (to me at least) from what you wrote earlier. To the contrary, at the beginning of the thread you wrote the Democrats' support for the equal protection of the marriage laws prevented you from voting for them. While most voters support marriage equality, including the vast majority of registered Democrats and most independents, you seemed to view the Democratic Party's support as an unforgivable sin. In contrast, you did not appear to blame the Republican Party for promising to amend the Constitution of the United States for the sole purpose of re-defining marriage to exclude gay couples. Among major Republican candidates, only Ron Paul had the courage to say no to that, and this whole debate illustrates the importance of limiting government in the way he advocated (and the founders believed). The less we involve government in things, the less we need to agree on. This is what the founders saw as well: by keeping their various religious beliefs and disbeliefs out of the picture, they didn't need to agree whose was the "one true god" (if any), so people couldn't be easily divided and misruled the way people are now.

I do observe that on this particular topic you seem to have a Maher-bubble that facts bounce off of, as pebbles bounce off armor plate (to borrow from the Alternet article above). Surveys since 2010 have shown that most voters support marriage equality, so it is unsurprising that a major party would adopt a position that most voters agree with; your assertion that it prevents you from voting for them is an anomaly, and your statement that it narrows the Democrats' base to "the Castro district" is demonstrably incorrect. Moreover, marriage, including same-sex marriage, has been around longer than any of the currently popular religions, so there is no basis for any current religion to claim ownership of "traditional marriage" or exclusive authority to define it. We have a legislative and judicial process to define terms, though I agree some terms become too personal and it would be better to keep the government out altogether. (I also feel this way about healthcare, for example, as to which different people have very different ideas.) In the past I liked many of your comments and nearly always agreed with you, but on this topic it appears we must disagree, and again that illustrates the value of limiting government to things people can agree on. It has become too easy for politicians to divide people because 51% stand ready to lock up the other 49%, for any reason or for none, or to take their marriages away, or tax/penalize them for not buying something unless they join an exempted religion (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). People so divided are easily misruled and exploited.

I will leave the "last word" to quoting the Constitution of the United States: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

curious2 says

I will leave the "last word" to quoting the Constitution of the United States: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Well put curious. And to further the sentiment, if marriage were not a recognized legally binding contract. If marriage did not come with the tax advantages, ability to make life and death medical decisions, etc. Then one could make the 'marriage is a religious instrument' argument.

I got married on a beach in Hawaii, there was no church, no priest, no mention of 'god' in my ceremony, but I am no less 'married'. The plain fact is, marriage is no longer defined by religion, and hasn't been since the inception of this country.

I would also support separating religious ceremonies from legally binding contracts, at least in theory. I qualify my statement because but how would you handle that? Would all current 'marriages' be nullified if we did this? (Since the implication is that religious ceremonies would not be legally recognized)

Does this mean that after your church ceremony, you have to go to the courthouse to take some sort of legally binding oath to codify it? If no, then you are back to implying a religious marriage ceremony has legal implications, which means a gay couple having their own ceremony (religious or not) would be doing something verbatim identical, so why not just call it marriage and be done with it?

As an Atheist, I am totally flummoxed as to why people get so hung up over the word 'marriage'. If two people (regardless of gender), or even multiple people (ie Mormons) want to take an oath that says they dedicate their lives to each other in a loving manner, and they live by those covenants. How is the institution of marriage sullied by this? How does this negatively impact freak and his wife who got married in their church in front of their god?

gbenson says

I would also support separating religious ceremonies from legally binding contracts, at least in theory. I qualify my statement because but how would you handle that? Would all current 'marriages' be nullified if we did this? (Since the implication is that religious ceremonies would not be legally recognized) Does this mean that after your church ceremony, you have to go to the courthouse to take some sort of legally binding oath to codify it?

Several countries separate the legal and religious ceremonies. For example, in Argentina, which is ~80% Catholic but respects freedom of religion, most people have two weddings: the legal one which is usually simple, followed by a lavish church celebration. I know people who were married that way years ago, they've been doing it that way so long it's what they mean when they say traditional marriage. I don't know when it started, but there was certainly no need to take away anyone's existing marriage; legislation is generally prospective, i.e. weddings after a certain date require a license but don't require a church ceremony, and then people can choose whether to add the church ceremony. Argentina recognizes same-sex marriage, though presumably if the newlyweds want a religious ceremony afterwards it won't be in a Catholic church.

Dan8267 says

Personally, I hope all gay couples sue the fuck out of the IRS and US Treasury for overpaid taxes and for penalties and interest for the past 100 years!

What a nonsense!
First of civil unions of the same sex couples are fully recognizes and in terms of taxes treated in the same exact way as married couples. They also may adopt children etc. In short, there is absolutely no civil, financial or other material benefits of marriage.
Second, have you heard of the marriage tax punishment? i.e when both partners have significant income their taxes when filing join tax return are much higher than when filing separately. So, who should sue IRS?

michaelsch says

In short, there is absolutely no civil, financial or other material benefits of marriage.

Yes there are. Survivor's benefits. Social Security. Unpaid leave for sick "spouse". End of life decisions. The right not to testify against your "spouse". And more.

michaelsch says

First of civil unions of the same sex couples are fully recognizes and in terms of taxes treated in the same exact way as married couples.

That is false. Some states, including California, treat registered domestic partnerships the same as marriage for tax purposes at the state level, but the federal government refuses to do the same. The result is many couples need to prepare three tax returns: (1) state level return on which they are married, (2) federal return as if they were not married, (3) state level return to adjust for the differences.

CL says

michaelsch says

In short, there is absolutely no civil, financial or other material benefits of marriage.

Yes there are. Survivor's benefits. Social Security. Unpaid leave for sick "spouse". End of life decisions. The right not to testify against your "spouse". And more.

Marriage, according to the US Government Accounting Office, bestows upon the legally married, as of 2004, 1,138 statutory provisions. I have pasted the core of the letter written by the GAO to then Senator Frist of TN.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

Subject: Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report

Dear Senator Frist:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that
are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation
of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.
1
In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.
2
In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior
to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to
update our 1997 compilation.
We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted
between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory
provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate
marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.

BTW, there isn't a single 'civil union' law or 'domestic partnership' law that bestows even a very tiny fraction of 1,138 city or state rights and benefits, and ZERO federal ones.

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

No one on the left is going to prosecute you or anyone else for holding any views on marriage, or from stating those views, as long as you aren't assaulting or injuring (actually, not figuratively) anyone. What will happen, and what I think you don't want (based on your comments on other threads), is that they will bring about changes which will make it more difficult for you to pretend that gays don't exist.

For example: in 37 states, you can fire someone just for being gay. I'd like that to change.

Silly arguments.
Those looking for the supposed equal protection under the law please tell me why I am not able to officially enter into marriage with more than one individual? Who is the state, you , or anyone else to detemine who I can love or who I can commit myself to? Go ahead and throw out the argument that you are just looking to be equal as society and laws are today, but that does not address your very argument that would be just as applicable to the question I ask above. The acronym that defines much of the groups fighting for this equality, GLBT, incorporates "bisexual" which should defintely include an additional argument for multiple marriages. Why isn't that part of the agenda? Too much too early? Someone please help define logically why I shouldn't assume that the efforts to legalize gay marriage are just a farce, since it really isn't including equal protection for so many that have existed for so long in societies even before this country was formed? What about our bisexual friends?
Help me understand?

MB says

Silly arguments.

Yes, it is silly of certain people to keep returning to the polygamy non-argument as if it were somehow an argument against same-sex marriage. It has been addressed earlier in the thread, but instead you troll by repeating it ad nauseam. The short answer to your "questions," as if they were really questions, is that 2=2 but 3>2. Equal means equal, equal protection means equal protection, 2=2, 3>2.

Wrong. Not returning, just confirming. Your bisexual friend could only have one marriage at a time then? Or, based on your short answer and to be clear, they don't fall under equal protection? Since 3>2, that is of course if they only had one person they loved of each gender and wanted to commit themself to both and not more.
It isn't an argument against same-sex marriage, it is an argument against goverment dictating anything related to your own morals. It appears that it is indeed not part of the agenda, because the basis of your response to my inquiry is "don't worry about that, it isn't an issue." I argue that it is indeed part of the issue and in the same sense the bisexuals have the same rights as all should have, which includes a 1=1 relationship with man and man, as well as the 1=1 relationship with where it is a man and woman.
Its the old nature discussion, where animals aren't meant to have one mate. Why are humans different? If religion didn't promote marriage for life, your fight would be the greater fight of the government controlling any of our morality. All the same rights are given, but until all are forced to change beliefs there is no end. Don't worry, I understand, I have studied cultures and histories. Nothing new here...please move on.

michaelsch says

First of civil unions of the same sex couples are fully recognizes and in terms of taxes treated in the same exact way as married couples.

Buster says

Actually, civil unions did not eliminate the harmful effects of discrimination. Actually, I am legally married, but paid over $5,000 more in taxes this year because my marriage is not recognized by the federal government. I also do not have the 1,100+ civil rights that are bestowed upon straight married couples. Civil Unions may have given token lip service and a few token rights to gay people. I don't want special rights as the christianists shout about. I simply want equal rights. Until I do I will not stop bitching so expect more. Simply put, if you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one.

Since Buster actually lives this shit, I'm more likely to have confidence in his correctness. What I've heard on NPR also collaborates what Buster said.

MB says

Those looking for the supposed equal protection under the law please tell me why I am not able to officially enter into marriage with more than one individual?

As with the current laws of the US, NO ONE is allowed to enter into marriages of more than two people. Gay people are not fighting for rights that NO ONE has. We simply wish to have the same rights and privileges that straight people currently have.

If you wish to enter into 3 way or more marriages, you will have to join the Mormons with this battle.

There are thousands of reasons why this is not allowed as the entire English case law would have to be rewritten to accommodate such multiple, more than 2 adult, relationships, e.g. who, upon the death of a spouse, gets to inherit, who gets custody of the kids, the cash, the house, how is social security and medicare benefits apportioned. There are no easy answers . As for same sex marriage, all the laws currently on the books would simply transfer over to couples married who are gay.

Using these examples alone it is very clear that this is a bullshit argument against same sex marriage. Of course, like I said before, if this is what you wish, you are entitled to take your case to the courts.

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

CL says

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

Do you compare polygamy to owning missiles?
I would say we can allow polygamy without gay marriage and bestiality.

Well, the idea of state defining, registering, and enforcing marriage is all non-sense. It did not exist before the 16th century when Protestants invented it.

Prior to this there were all kind of recognized and honored marriages including Jewish (blessing of the woman to belong to a male), Christian (blessed by the Church, but never required) etc. In general, the Church considered marriage a natural sacrament valid without any ceremony or registration.

Unfortunately, modern marriage mostly follows the Calvinist approach, which required state registration. It is based on the idea of completely fallen human nature, which has to be fully controled by authorities. All we need is just to get rid of this crazy idea.

Governments should not be involved in this business at all. If necessary, tax or whatever social benefits should be linked to raising family or maintaining a household. If any society (religious, or local, or any other is interested in blessing, celebrating and recording marriages, it's up to their rules. )

Ah Calvinism. And the periodic reactions against it.

The dynamic at the heart and soul of American religion/culture/philosophy for the last 400 years.

Buster says

There are thousands of reasons why this is not allowed as the entire English case law would have to be rewritten to accommodate such multiple, more than 2 adult, relationships, e.g. who, upon the death of a spouse, gets to inherit, who gets custody of the kids, the cash, the house, how is social security and medicare benefits apportioned. There are no easy answers . As for same sex marriage, all the laws currently on the books would simply transfer over to couples married who are gay.

In other words it isn't about justice or equal personal rights but about legal convenience.
Well, even this does not work well. Look at all legal cases, in which two former wifes (or a real wife and an officially registered one) are fighting for inheritance. One hears about such cases every day. Just look at today news:
http://www.loansafe.org/legal-tussle-over-thomas-kinkades-multi-million-estate-heads-back-to-court