Chic-Fil-A

I proved that it wasn't me that even brought up the marriage and government question?

You did bring it up
That means you are not telling the truth as you cannot have proved you didn't.
Its all in the opening post. Chic-Fil-A
Chick fil A...a news topic about gay marriage and the political activities of its CEO and the natural ramifications from his campaigning and his recent comments.
You cannot bring up some mythical FREEDOM of speech issue without dealing with the speech.
Its like a topic on weather where you try and insist precipitation must not be mentioned.

So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible

So you are in favour of the government restricting the poofs.

[QUOTE Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out.][/QUOTE]
Its a governemt role that (as you yourself have posted) the church moved into. It is the church who should move out and allow the government to keep its normal position which isn't any deeper than it has ever been.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible.

Are you going to condemn Hikind for damaging Gibsons business in his elected role or are you just going to be a complete hypocrit. (or are you going to accept that your attempted angle on this has no actual validity)
After all Hikind was "worse" as poor oppressed Mel wasn't involved in campaining on any actual political issues involved when he was being a bigot.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I can believe they shouldn't be married. That doesn't mean that I think the power of Government should be used to prohibit it. I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix". Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that.

Fair enough, and a reasonable argument.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract. If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.

Again, much more reasoned and reasonable.

While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more.

Somewhat, yes.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible. If he was "just" a regular member - the analogy of a moderator/politician speaking from an offical position vs speaking as a private individual wouldn't work. A moderator here is "like" a subsim gov't official. See the analogy? Takeda has always done a great job seperating the two - and I was holding him up as an example of what some politicians SHOULD be doing - keeping the two roles seperate. Hopefully, it makes more sense now.

Not really, but then I've said more than once that a lot of things don't make sense to me.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix".

But the current status quo is that of inequality - gays can't get married to each other and have it be recognized with all of the rights and privileges that straight married couples enjoy. That's a situation that needs to be addressed, and doing it right isn't something we need to hm and haw about. The solution is glaringly obvious. "get it right"? Please. This doesn't take a complex solution arrived at after years of scientific studies.

Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that.

As Tribesman has pointed out many times, the government is, has been, and always will be in the marriage business. It's a legal contract that changes the legal standing of the parties involved. Wanting to drag feet so as to maintain the status quo is only a delaying tactic.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract.

Contract law states that yes, the government is, has and will be involved in it.

If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.

As I said - I would prefer government be out of it. However, if the alternative is governmental interference - then it should be done in a way that is constitutionally correct. While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more.

It is the federal government's role to enact civil rights law and uphold the 14th Amendment. I trust the federal government a hell of a lot more than some of these backwards states to protect the civil rights of citizens. If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.

If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.

That is why I mentioned the good ol' boys in Mississippi last month stopping a couple getting married simply because of the colour of their skin.
Quite relevant when you consider that Haplo did a little celebration topic on a southern state banning equal rights in marriage when the last time that state made laws banning equal rights in marriage it was down to the colour of peoples skin.

As Tribesman has pointed out many times,

Thank Haplo for that, it was his failed attempt at proving his point which delivered conclusively.
It is so easy when people post "supporting" evidence for their views which manage to destoy the core of their whole arguement and I appreciate haplo for killing his own attempt at reason.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But the current status quo is that of inequality - gays can't get married to each other and have it be recognized with all of the rights and privileges that straight married couples enjoy. That's a situation that needs to be addressed, and doing it right isn't something we need to hm and haw about. The solution is glaringly obvious. "get it right"? Please. This doesn't take a complex solution arrived at after years of scientific studies.

OK - the claim of inequality means your looking at marriage as a "right". Are we going to "fix" this but continue to deny "equal rights" to those who may be polyamorous and want to have multiple wives or multiple husbands? Or is it the role of the federal government to acknowledge and recognize any union claimed by a group consisting of more than one consenting adult as marriage?

As Tribesman has pointed out many times, the government is, has been, and always will be in the marriage business. It's a legal contract that changes the legal standing of the parties involved. Wanting to drag feet so as to maintain the status quo is only a delaying tactic.

I don't see tribesman since he only chooses to tear apart others views (often erroneously) while never trying to offer solutions. As such, his posts are a waste of time for me and others to read. So don't expect me to address posts I haven't seen.

Contract law states that yes, the government is, has and will be involved in it.

Well, now your stating that marriage is a contract. I thought it was a "right"?

It is the federal government's role to enact civil rights law and uphold the 14th Amendment. I trust the federal government a hell of a lot more than some of these backwards states to protect the civil rights of citizens.

So we are back to it being a right again? As for trust - therein lies one fundamental difference we have - you trust the federal government more that the States. I disagree and I doubt we will close that gap.

If they were able to, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if states like Mississippi and Oklahoma abolished the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I disagree that such would happen and it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. Your trying to try bigotry and racism to this subject (and those that hold a different view). Nice....

Wanting to see the states in control of allowing gay marriage or not is another tactic to create enclaves of inequality and hold out and delay granting rights to gay people. You know darn well states like the ones I've mentioned would never allow it, and it's not due to some high minded legal philosophy of states rights or anything like that - it's due to pure theocracy.

So if states would not agree with you - so they must be theocratic tyrannies at the State level? Is that the best you have? No accusations that gays would not be allowed to leave the state to go to another that DOES allow them to marry? No claims of "re-education" camps to "cure" them of the "sickness of homosexuality"? 32 states have passed constitutional ammendments disallowing gay marriage. So 32 states are "pure theocracies"? So places like California and Hawaii are theocracies? The facts prove your claim blatantly false.

The thing is you can't decide whether marriage is a right, or if its a civil contract. If you claim its a right - you still end up referencing the civil contract legalities. If it is a right - gays can live together and provide all the medical/legal authorities to their partners. They can leave their stuff to each other - preserving the right of inheritance. So they are not unequal because they have the ability to do the same.

If its a contract, you simply want to blow off the Constitution because you don't agree with what following it would mean. We disagree because I don't think the Constitution is something that can just be pushed to the side.

Now - I am going to open up a can of worms. Talk about a theocracy - you do realize that if I had my way, marriage would not only be open to gays, but to polygamists. If the people involved were of legal age and consent, you could marry anyone (and everyone) who was willing to marry you. Yes - I said it. Why? Because in an ideal world, its not my business who you marry. So tell me mookie - who should be allowed to marry and who shouldn't? Why should 2 gay men or gay women be allowed to marry - while a man or woman should not be allowed to marry an existing couple (or larger group)?

Yes - I don't think gays should marry. That is a moral stance. But I seperate my personal morals from the role of government. I don't think the government should be limiting the "rights" of its people on their free association. Do you? If you agree with me - then you have to recognize that the "fix" for the government as it stands is not to just "legalize" gay marriage - as that will still live many restricted. It is to get the Federal govt out of the business of marriage.

So don't expect me to address posts I haven't seen

A perfect demonstration of ignorance
Quite funny really as the history of marriage contracts which destroys that part of his arguement was posted by himself, which means he is also ignorant of his own arguements

Well, now your stating that marriage is a contract. I thought it was a "right"?

Well duh .....Adults have the right to enter a contract

So we are back to it being a right again?

Well duh ...they are not mutually exclusive

is that the carolina two step where you prance around the point but never get to it?

I disagree that such would happen and it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

Ignorance pays off again in a big way

Your trying to try bigotry and racism to this subject (and those that hold a different view). Nice....

The people you are defending and their speech are tied to the funding of some very vocal bigots, they are certainly not nice people at all.
I suppose that is why you are trying to avoid the speech and concentrate on some mythical FREEDOM.

Wow he tops it all by trying the constitution and rights even though he has completely failed on the issue of rights

Too easy, you could almost feel sorry for him.


Interesting attempt on the polygamy(in keeping with post #4 which was in keeping with post#1), though the government would have to draw up lots and lots of new legislation to cover the multi partnership contracts to cover people rights....damn you said you wanted less government didn't you, does that add up to another of your epic fails?

[AngusJS]

We already allow homosexuals to live, in complete defiance of god's law! Do we dare try his patience further? We at Chic-Fil-A say no!

I like the first comment.

There's***65279; a risk that the type of people your parody jokes about, won't know what the word "parody" means.

[vienna]

The more things change, the more they remain the same:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2...othing_new.php

Although the article says the Carl's Jr. was "short distance to the east", it actually was on the same lot now occupied by the Chick-Fil-A in Hollywood I noted in previous posts; I know because I used to buy food at the Carl's Jr. before thay shut down (before it was a Carl's Jr., it was a Rally's franchise - it appears fast food stores aren't very long-lived at that location). The article is an interesting view to how liitle things have changed...

The bottom line in the whole Chick-Fil-A matter is this:

1. Some gay activist(s) scoured the donation lists of groups they oppose and found a media-ready target;

2. The gay activists, seeing the opportunity to get media attention, boosting their public visibility, pounced on the media ready target;

3. The CEO of the media ready target probably saw an opportunity to boost his sales and increase his company's public visibility by pandering to his like minded public;

4. The CEO of the nedia ready target now steps forward and stokes the media fire by making futher pronouncements while watching his sales rise;

5. Media hungry tag-alongs like Huckabee, who wants to boost his public visibility and ratings versuses those of Limbaugh, also step forward to stoke the media fire;

6. The media, like the lemmings they are, see the opporunity to increase their visibility and corporate income, and dance, dare I say, gaily, around the media fire;

7. Various portions of the public, pro and con, being the lemmings following the lemmings, join the gaily dancing media in their dance and revel in the prognostications, pro and con, flitting about;

8. The rest of us, having really better things to do, glance at the whole spectacle and then move on...

Now, let's see what other non-exhausted topics there are out there...

...

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

7. Various portions of the public, pro and con, being the lemmings following the lemmings, join the gaily dancing media in their dance and revel in the prognostications, pro and con, flitting about;

8. The rest of us, having really better things to do, glance at the whole spectacle and then move on...

"Now we're getting somewhere..." said one of the lemmings.