George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

See attached

Bumping just to make sure Captain J sees it.

Rights don't suddenly wink into existence with majority approval, you fucking statist drone.

Self-centered? Which one of us is masturbating furiously behind his computer at the idea of total strangers being denied something that didn't affect him in any way? The "consequences" existed only in that perpetual sphincter clench you call an imagination.

depressing. as. fuck.

It wasn't just religous groups that had a problem with this you fucking drama queen. It was voted down by the people of california , which is probably the most "progressive" constituencies in the nation. It doesn't matter who put it on the ballot. It takes the people to vote it in. It wasn't because they were hoodwinked or lied to. It's because they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. It's as simple as that. Now put an amendment on the ballot that allows civil unions to enjoy the same rights as a marriage couple and I guarentee you it will pass.

A religious ceremony. Which is why religious groups care about it. When it's a vow before God, churches have a issue with who is taking those vows. Churches can turn away couples they decide not to marry now. Zel and I had to have a bunch of "councilling" we didn't want when we wed.

Which is why the answer is civil unions for everyone with religious ceremonies for those who want them through the churches who will perform them.

That would be you. I have no problem with the concept of gay marriage at all. Under the current legal system, it isn't doable without radical changes to an already fucked up divorce law system. And since marriage is a matter of contract law, until there's a system in place that ISN'T a complete cluster fuck when it comes to fair and equitable dissolution of the marital contract, hell NO I'm not supporting making it more of a cluster fuck than it already is.

Actually, they were lied to, but that's beside the point.

no u

Give them all the same shit as married people but just call it something different and the problem is solved.

So, paperwork. They shouldn't get to marry, because you don't like the extra paperwork.

FUCK the goddamn church. They don't own the institution of marriage.

Yes, it is a religious ceremony. One that carries with it a status, and that status carries certain advantages and benefits that are dictated by the state. I would have no problem with decoupling the two, but that's not what this is about.

This is about affirming second class citizenship for people. And it's about the intersection of fear and money.

Or, better yet, quit performing marriages under the current system of marriage/divorce law and replace that law with a system of civil union law.

So basically, you're a stupid, self-centered son of a bitch.

SCOTUS has held that that only applies to criminal law. As marriage is a civil matter, and there is no penalty for being unlawfully married...

Can of worms there. Just give them the same thing under a different name and be done with it.

Seperate but equal, huh?

Which is why we can have retroactive tax increases...


And why companies are now implementing their layoff plans in anticipation of Obama's tax proposals.

Explain how not wanting to deny an entire group of people a basic right for arbitrary reasons makes me selfish. So far all you've got is that you're too uncaring to deal with a government bureaucracy being expanded to include more of the people it exists to serve.

I'd love to see where they were lied to. I don't even live there and I was able to figure out what the amendment meant. Do you really think that voters in California had NO clue what the amendment meant with two opposing factions fighting in public and the news media reporting it?

No, letting the old and stupid die out in favor of the new and effective.

It doesn't apply to tax law, though it should.

First, the big lie about it being for arbitrary reasons.

Being reluctant to expand the government bureaucracy to include everyone it exists to serve is a fucking arbitrary reason.

Marriage isn't a right.

Your marriage is your business, it's not up for a vote.

Bullshit it's not. BULLSHIT.

Any activity is a right, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and marriage satisfies that condition no matter what genders are involved.

"Any activity is a right."

That's a new one.

Damn UA!

Why are you so emotional about gay marriages? I don't get it.

Oh, and Mikey and his clones, I love the whole 'Obama elected = The people have spoken!!!' vs. 'CA gay marriages overturned = Invalid! It's just religious people! They should be ignored!" schtick.

You should stop trying to convince us that you're straight. It's obvious you aren't.

No, it's actually older than anyone here. Trying to misquote and mock what you can't refute? Justify denying someone an activity that harms no one else. Can you do it without resorting to gossipy, majoritist sanctimony? Can you do it without presuming to dole out approval on things that are none of your fucking business?