Clay Bennett for August 08, 2014

Equal equality, what a concept!

Good for America! Every once in a while, we do the right thing. Now, we need the courts to actually do their work…

The cartoon suggests that the United States is scrapping “marriage” in the name of “equality.” I hope that things do not turn out that way.

“It is interesting that all of these occurred under the watch of Republican presidents.”Because you believe your god says so? And the rest of us who don’t share your beliefs are supposed to bow to your beliefs? 150 years ago, the US rejected your god’s decree that slavery and savage treatment of slaves is acceptable. We are now in the process of rejecting your views on gays.

Back to the cartoon; why is it that Bennet always draws Americans as simpletons with angel faces?

So much for your fact-free opinion. Next?

per·ver·sionpərˈvərZHən/Submitnoun1.the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

/eyeroll

“just get your own word…”The word is coded into law, therefore it is my word every much as it is yours. If you don’t want the gays to use it, all marriages legally recognized in the US must use a different word, both gay and straight.

“All of the above liberals voted for Obama back in ’08, when he was an ignorant Conservative who thought that gay marriage was ‘icky’.”That is as ignorant as it is untrue. I am a liberal and I have stated on many, many occasions that I did not vote for Obama in either election. Part of the reason I didn’t vote for him was the very careful and political way he answered the gay marriage question. His so called “evolution” happened right after it was obvious the political winds were shifting in favor of gay marriage. How convenient is that??BTW, when the legislature of my state voted to allow gay marriage, some Democrats voted against it, and some Republicans voted for it.

“Terms accepted You pick a word for your ‘Man + Man or Woman + Woman’ and I will pick a word that means ‘Man + Woman’ but they will be different…”Except what you described aren’t my terms. You can limit the term “marriage” to refer only to religiously recognized marriages. All marriages legally recognized by the US federal, state, and local governments will use a single term in accordance with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This term would be different from the term set aside for religious marriages.E.g: All marriages recognized by religious entities would retain the word marriage. All marriages, both hetero and homosexual, legally recognized by US federal, state, and local governments would be referred to as civil unions.To further distinguish the concept of legal and religious marriages, I propose we enact the German system of requiring all legally recognized marriages be officiated by a government official. A couple can elect to have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil, but the religious would not be legally recognized. This would allow Mormon men to be married to multiple women in the eyes of their god without the complexity that would be involved in a legally recognized polygamous marriage.

I was willing to create a new word for “man+woman” but I accept generous offer to have “marriage = man + women” even though you think only based on a religious basis…That wasn’t a genuine offer. It was you looking for a loophole in the wording of my text. What you want isn’t a separation of religion and law, it’s the failed “separate but equal” BS they forced on the blacks in the 1960s.One can not use a single term to describe Man+woman", “man+man”, and “women+women” since only one combination will create children… people keep leaving that part out of the definition of Marriage…People keep leaving that part out of the definition of marriage because it’s not part of it. The possibility for conception is not a precondition to get married and there are a lot of couples with no chance of conception who are allowed to marry. My mother was post menopausal when she married. No where in this country does any state or city ban marriage between heterosexual couples who can’t conceive. No one even asks.

michael: I was going to correct you on “unalienable”. Hah! Turns out the “inalienable” that I was taught is only half right (or less).

“All of the above liberals voted for Obama back in ’08, when he was an ignorant Conservative who thought that gay marriage was “icky”. That was before his views “evolved” for political expediency during the ’12 election.”-To be fair I noticed a lot of liberals assuring each other, “oh, he’s just lying about that.” And I think that they were right.

"the couples are different, but financially their unions can be equable…That was the thought behind “separate, but equal” back in the 1960s.“only one set of couples can share their DNA and yield children….I’ve already told you the ability to have children is not a prerequisite marriage. Couples who cannot have children can still get married. Your argument is still invalid.”you should consider giving your poor mother grandchildren…"She’s not poor and she already has grandchildren. /eyeroll

“ou are not holding up your commitment to be using a different word…”And you’re back to creating a loophole out of the text of my post. My commitment was for one word for all marriages acknowledged by religious institutions and one word for all marriages legally recognized by government institutions.BTW, my mother isn’t rich either. You have a habit of making bad assumptions.

As I said, you looked for a loophole in the text of my post. Both gay and straight legally recognized marriages would use the same word, which would be a different word than the one used for religiously recognized marriages.