The story is not quite over here in Cacophonia—…A Zonie Group has filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding to have their voice heard on the issue over Proposition 8 and has demanded that the resumption of marriages that is taking place nowadays in some counties be stopped until the petition is heard.…Regardless, the county clerks in the 58 counties that make up Cacophonia are proceeding on marrying any couple with a valid marriage license with the State Attorney General’s blessings, who in turn did the ceremonies to the couple that are the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.…We’ll see if the Supreme Court, or even the 9th Circuit even entertains what these people want in their petition, considering that about the only good thing that California enjoys coming from Arizona is Colorado River Water.
Charles Krauthammer, whom I normally detest with a passion (I sometimes abuse myself — mentally that is — by reading his column) made some very interesting points about the Supreme Court decision. Rather than reiterate it, you can read it here:
if 2 people want to live together that is their decision but in 1st case bho decided not to defend doma the dead political contributor’s{ to bho} girl friend got marital deduction on the estate costing USA gov $5.6 million . giving the break to a heterosexual couple is like an investment because a dr or mechanic or a waiter maybe produced . while it is true it does not always happen - not all investments are winners.
“But why insist that it be called “marriage”?Just to spit in some people’s faces, to grind them down?“Marriage” was intended to officially sanction a continuous breeding pair relationship.Maybe when they can jointly procreate, then revisit if it fits the definition of “marriage”. ?”
Would you also insist upon a different name for the union of heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to procreate?
If a man and/or a woman brings children to a marriage from a previous relationship and raise those children together without begetting any new ones, would you deny them the word “marriage”? If a married couple adopt rather than procreate biologically, would you deny them the word “marriage”?
All of these are scenarios which are as possible with same-sex couples as with opposite sex couples.
With the resumption of same-sex marriage in California, there are now something like 28,000 children who are being raised by couples who, until now, had been denied the right to be married.
Social conservatives really are like kids building sandcastles; putting so much effort while they know that the current culture will not move towards it. They say “the good ’ol” something every two sentences but you can’t turn back time.
“It bothers me, that after over 25 centuries, that a change in the definition of “marriage” is being crammed down our throats and into our society.”
It bothers me that after over 200 years as a nation we still haven’t figured out that All People Are Created Equal. Why is this so hard? Why do you people continue to try to disenfranchise other people at any excuse? This is not hard. It’s nor rocket science. All People Are Create Equal.
I know homosexual clergymen who are in relationships. To marry means to join. I’ve lived with my other half (also a man) for over 17 years and everybody accepts it. My consort’s nieces are always asking when we are going to get married, just so they have an excuse to dress up..What’s the problem? I also know 15 year old girls who have two kids who will never marry as that will stop their benefits. Who is committing the greater crime?.
Which definition?Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.MOST cultures on Earth CURRENTLY permit multiple (female) spouses.A few permit multiple male spouses.In the Middle Ages, it was a merger of resources or a political union REGARDLESS of children, but it was still called a “marriage.” Some evidence suggests the Church solemnized homosexual unions as well.What about arranged marriages, which still take place?If there is one fact about human beings, it is that we VARY in our practices.It is only in the last few centuries that the idea of romantic love being the driver of marriage became the assumption — and even then mostly in Western cultures.Your assumed “traditional” definition is therefore ahistorical. Unless you want to include multiple spouses in your definition, too.
Homosexual couples love each other as much as straight people do. They share the assumptions of Westerners that you should be able to MARRY the one you love. This in NO WAY is about insulting others, it is about sharing in the same assumptions as others.
Your comment says more about your biases than anyone else’s: people fall in love, they want to get married. Period. Procreation no longer has anything to do with it — or we would not permit marriages of infertile people. Do you suggest this?
Also agree with motive! The “common” people only had “common law”, AS IF MARRIED, for centuries! And if “marriage” was so damned SACRED, why was the lord if the manor allowed to have first dibs? Most “religionists” don’t read history, and thus don’t realize that the Anglican Church was created because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his SECOND wife, after getting a dispensation from the Pope to divorce his FIRST! Some “sacrament”:!
Sportymonk almost 11 years ago
Marriage – The Church – The Future. Interesting and challenging read. http://comments-life.blogspot.com
californicated1 almost 11 years ago
The story is not quite over here in Cacophonia—…A Zonie Group has filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding to have their voice heard on the issue over Proposition 8 and has demanded that the resumption of marriages that is taking place nowadays in some counties be stopped until the petition is heard.…Regardless, the county clerks in the 58 counties that make up Cacophonia are proceeding on marrying any couple with a valid marriage license with the State Attorney General’s blessings, who in turn did the ceremonies to the couple that are the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.…We’ll see if the Supreme Court, or even the 9th Circuit even entertains what these people want in their petition, considering that about the only good thing that California enjoys coming from Arizona is Colorado River Water.
stamps almost 11 years ago
Charles Krauthammer, whom I normally detest with a passion (I sometimes abuse myself — mentally that is — by reading his column) made some very interesting points about the Supreme Court decision. Rather than reiterate it, you can read it here:
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/charles-krauthammer-coming-sooner-gay-marriage-nationwide-1.409773
pam Miner almost 11 years ago
why does it bother people what others do in their own home?
dzw3030 almost 11 years ago
What purpose does your hatred serve? My niece will marry her long time partner and I’ll be there to celebrate. But hatred serves nothing.
oneoldhat almost 11 years ago
if 2 people want to live together that is their decision but in 1st case bho decided not to defend doma the dead political contributor’s{ to bho} girl friend got marital deduction on the estate costing USA gov $5.6 million . giving the break to a heterosexual couple is like an investment because a dr or mechanic or a waiter maybe produced . while it is true it does not always happen - not all investments are winners.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 11 years ago
“But why insist that it be called “marriage”?Just to spit in some people’s faces, to grind them down?“Marriage” was intended to officially sanction a continuous breeding pair relationship.Maybe when they can jointly procreate, then revisit if it fits the definition of “marriage”. ?”
Would you also insist upon a different name for the union of heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to procreate?
If a man and/or a woman brings children to a marriage from a previous relationship and raise those children together without begetting any new ones, would you deny them the word “marriage”? If a married couple adopt rather than procreate biologically, would you deny them the word “marriage”?
All of these are scenarios which are as possible with same-sex couples as with opposite sex couples.
With the resumption of same-sex marriage in California, there are now something like 28,000 children who are being raised by couples who, until now, had been denied the right to be married.
beautifulyoli Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Good! Hate is never justified.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Social conservatives really are like kids building sandcastles; putting so much effort while they know that the current culture will not move towards it. They say “the good ’ol” something every two sentences but you can’t turn back time.
I Quit almost 11 years ago
“It bothers me, that after over 25 centuries, that a change in the definition of “marriage” is being crammed down our throats and into our society.”
It bothers me that after over 200 years as a nation we still haven’t figured out that All People Are Created Equal. Why is this so hard? Why do you people continue to try to disenfranchise other people at any excuse? This is not hard. It’s nor rocket science. All People Are Create Equal.
pcolli almost 11 years ago
I know homosexual clergymen who are in relationships. To marry means to join. I’ve lived with my other half (also a man) for over 17 years and everybody accepts it. My consort’s nieces are always asking when we are going to get married, just so they have an excuse to dress up..What’s the problem? I also know 15 year old girls who have two kids who will never marry as that will stop their benefits. Who is committing the greater crime?.
Motivemagus almost 11 years ago
Which definition?Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.MOST cultures on Earth CURRENTLY permit multiple (female) spouses.A few permit multiple male spouses.In the Middle Ages, it was a merger of resources or a political union REGARDLESS of children, but it was still called a “marriage.” Some evidence suggests the Church solemnized homosexual unions as well.What about arranged marriages, which still take place?If there is one fact about human beings, it is that we VARY in our practices.It is only in the last few centuries that the idea of romantic love being the driver of marriage became the assumption — and even then mostly in Western cultures.Your assumed “traditional” definition is therefore ahistorical. Unless you want to include multiple spouses in your definition, too.
Homosexual couples love each other as much as straight people do. They share the assumptions of Westerners that you should be able to MARRY the one you love. This in NO WAY is about insulting others, it is about sharing in the same assumptions as others.
Your comment says more about your biases than anyone else’s: people fall in love, they want to get married. Period. Procreation no longer has anything to do with it — or we would not permit marriages of infertile people. Do you suggest this?
echoraven almost 11 years ago
Holy smokes! Just HOW much Kool Aid did you have this morning?.BTW, great cartoon. The sand castle is appropriate representation. Brilliant!
edward thomas Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Also agree with motive! The “common” people only had “common law”, AS IF MARRIED, for centuries! And if “marriage” was so damned SACRED, why was the lord if the manor allowed to have first dibs? Most “religionists” don’t read history, and thus don’t realize that the Anglican Church was created because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his SECOND wife, after getting a dispensation from the Pope to divorce his FIRST! Some “sacrament”:!