Student attacked for writing pro-marriage equality opinion piece | The Raw Story

Yes, but with one of the better economies in the USA, we've attracted all sorts of people to live here. And then, we have our own home-grown righties who just like to be contrary to what they see as the norm here.

For the life of me I cannot understand what these people have against Gay/Lesbians.

I'm married with children and grandchildren. I have absolutely NOTHING against these other American citizens.

My attitude is, I'm not sleeping with them, they don't bother any one, leave these people in peace.

What the chowderheads in the Republican party don't realize--these are American citizens and thery are entitled to the same right, freedoms, and the pusuit of happiness that is guaranteed to all AMERICAN citizens-not just Republican right wing nut jobs.

When a party wants to take away another person's rights---it's time for the true Americans to stand up to them and keep this country free for everyone as it was designed to be.

Republicans-don't like it? Move to Iran where your hate and bigotry will fit right in. You are an embaressment to this country.

People who have nothing going on in their lives tend to look at others to denigrate, it makes them feel superior.

Actively campaigning to deny another the rights you currently enjoy is a very dark place for a person to be.

They know they have no valid argument to make so they always resort to threats and violence, claiming it's God's will for them to do so.

Fixed for perfect accuracy.

Michael-You warmed my heart!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for mentioning Opus Dei. I have been trying to make people aware of the dangers of that organization for months.

While, IMHO, everything Santorum spews is dangerous his connection(s) to Opus Dei is the most destructive towards the foundations of our nation. They are a more radicalized Alec with the extremists of the most conservative Catholics attached.

We concern ourselves with a christian taliban coming out of the evangelicals. Opus dei is much, much more sinister.

Rome Journal; Conservative Catholic Group Casts Off Its Cloak
By ALAN RIDING, Special to The New York Times
Published: October 25, 1989

For a religious organization with a legendary penchant for secrecy, it seems appropriate that only a street number, 73, should identify the imposing building on Viale Bruno Buozzi, three miles from the Vatican, as the headquarters of Opus Dei.

Ignoring charges by liberal sectors of the Roman Catholic Church that it uses the methods of a secret society, the conservative movement, which is run by priests but consists mainly of laymen, has discovered over the last six decades that discretion in fact breeds success.

While the Catholic Church has seen the number of new vocations - of priests and nuns - fall steadily, Opus Dei has continued to grow to the point that today, with 75,000 members in 47 countries, it is three times larger than the Society of Jesus, the biggest traditional religious order.

Now, quietly encouraged by Pope John Paul II, who views the movement's theological orthodoxy with sympathy, Opus Dei - whose name means ''the Work of God'' in Latin -is for the first time beginning to show its face more openly, confident that it has consolidated its position within the church.

This is part of an article written in 1989 - imagine where opus dei is today!

Additional mind numbing reading at http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/world/rome-journal-conservative-catholic-group-casts-off-its-cloak.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Lol

You gonna let us in on the joke Jake?

I am against any State making laws that violate the US Constitution.

The distinction here is that we're a constitutional republic where civil rights are guaranteed to be protected, regardless of the whims of simple majorities.

We have defined clearly the threshold of support that is necessary to abridge civil rights: First, support of two-thirds of both houses of the federal legislature. Then, three-quarters of the states must vote in favor, the vote within each state assuring that a majority of the voters in that state are in favor, through their representatives. So claims that the will of the people aren't heeded are vacuous. Rather, the whims of the people aren't heeded. There is a clearly defined means of establishing when the true will of the people has been established. That is a the reflection of a constitutional republic.

One other thing: While I support the establishment of marriage equality, within all states, not only on the basis of equal protection under the law but also on the basis of simply decency, that's not the only issue: Unlike the failure of governments to grant recognition to same-sex marriages, which are merely failures to abide by constitutional provisions, DOMA explicitly declares its constitutional defilement. It could not be worded any more clearly except if they had written, "despite the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, we're going to allow states to ignore marriages sanctioned by other states".

Although I agree with the courts decision..I'm weary of allowing the court the power to overrule the people.

So you'd be OK if the people of a given state, say Alabama, decided by popular vote to reinstate slavery?

Majority vote doesn't always equal constitutional.

Why waste the money and time to ask the citizens of a state to vote on a matter / any matter if the court is going to overrule it anyway? Just goes to show you that our republic form of government is deteriorating fast into a dictatorship either by executive power or judicial.

I bet the African Americans felt the same exact way when segregation was the topic. The majority should never have a say on what rights a minority can have. I guess taking freedoms from people is cool in the Constitution as long as it's done by voters./s

Gay marriage should never have been put on a ballot in the first place...marriage should be up to two people that want to enter into it..not the state.

Amen to that but until we get the religous on the same page instances like this story will still happen.

marriage should be up to two people that want to enter into it..not the state. Although I agree with the courts decision..I'm weary of allowing the court the power to overrule the people.

The state already regulates it. The Court decision simply requires that they do so equally. You cannot state that "marriage should be up to two people" and then defend a vote by the people in the state to not allow those two people to marry. That is wholly inconsistent. How about the state gets out of the marriage business all together. All state sanctioned unions between two people should be civil unions. Marriages will then be relegated to churches as the religious sacrament it is. If you do not belong to a church that allows gays to marry, change your church. The state will take no position on "marriage"; it will simply recognize the union between two people. We sort of have that with the Catholic Church. Catholics do not recognize the authority of the state to dissolve a Catholic Marriage. The state, does, however, have the right to dissolve the civil union between two catholics. That should extend to marriage.

I am against any State making laws that violate the US Constitution.

Me too Doc. That's why I made it clear that it should never have been put to vote in the first place. That's my whole point..Our basic human rights, should not be up for a vote by any state or federal government.

So you'd be OK if the people of a given state, say Alabama, decided by popular vote to reinstate slavery?

Why do people always have to be sarcastic smartasses?? NO! Slavery was never legal under our constitution..All men are created equal ring a bell??

The majority should never have a say on what rights a minority can have. I guess taking freedoms from people is cool in the Constitution as long as it's done by voters./s

yes, your right. and under our constitution voters have no right to do just that. That's why I stated it should never have been put to vote in the first place...jeesh, you guys see an opinion that varies slightly.....my point is the court nor the State have the authority to make these decisions, so why do we (a republic) allow them the illusion that they do?? We shouldn't..once power is implied, it is given.

Slavery was never legal under our constitution..

Yes it was. Our Constitution even outlined a specific way to count slaves for the census, for the purpose of allocating representatives to Congress.

All men are created equal ring a bell??

Unfortunately, that line appears only in the Declaration of Independence. It didn't make it into the US Constitution, which is the foundation on which all constitutional law is based.

Furthermore, slavery apologists would be quick to point out that they didn't consider slaves to be "full men". Indeed, they managed to make sure our Constitution only considered slaves 3/5 men, so they would consider it righteous to provide slaves only 3/5 the rights that "full men" had.

why do we (a republic) allow them the illusion that they do??

There is no law prohibiting a vote that ratifies a constitutional right. It's pointless, but then again, so are any number of non-binding resolutions, including things like declaring special "days", "weeks" or "months" for various causes, which is a frequent occurrence.

and then defend a vote by the people in the state to not allow those two people to marry. That is wholly inconsistent. How about the state gets out of the marriage business all together.

I'm not defending the vote made by the people...I made it quite clear that this issue should never have been put to a vote in the first place...What I'm concerned about is what implied powers we are handing the court and what they will in turn do with that power in the future. We should not as a republic form of Government forget that we the people are the law of the land not we the state / court. The court / state has no authority over this matter.. and we should not give them the illusion that they do.You know slowly boil the frog and he won't realize he's dying. So what is the solution to this problem?? I'm not sure, but I agree with the idea that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.

What I'm concerned about is what implied powers we are handing the court

The powers aren't implied. These specific powers are explicitly granted to the court, and are indeed its most solemn duty.

We should not as a republic form of Government forget that we the people are the law of the land not we the state / court.

As soon as the Supreme Court overrules three-quarters of the states, each state's voting majority supporting the same thing, then you can come back and raise that issue.

The powers aren't implied. These specific powers are explicitly granted to the court, and are indeed its most solemn duty.

I have to disagree with this. The courts and government for that matter, duty is to protect our rights not grant them.

As soon as the Supreme Court overrules three-quarters of the states, each state's voting majority supporting the same thing, then you can come back and raise that issue.

With the over reaching of state and federal governments in the last few decades...I'm sure it won't be long. from the patriot act to wars to policing the world to healthcare to gay marriage....to an ungodly amount of debt and stagnet economy. Slowly boil the American public, so they don't realize they are being ruled by giving more and more power to an already corrupt government. We are already turning to the court for basic human rights? Please almighty king of courts, can we please be allowed to enter into a marriage?? No, not long at all.

I have to disagree with this. The courts and government for that matter, duty is to protect our rights not grant them.

That's not a disagreement; it's an irrelevancy. They're not granting rights. The rights at-issue are rights-inherent, and therefore the protection warranted under the Equal Protection Clause. I think a lot of folks are under the mistaken impression that the rule of law became the 100% absolute reality of the situation the day the Constitution was ratified. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are numerous examples of the suppression of rights by governments, and numerous cases where Americans have left behind barbarism of the past once that suppression was exposed. As a matter of fact, the #1 reason given to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment was that the Constitution already provided for everything elaborated in the amendment - it was just a matter of getting the courts to enforce the implication that the rights-inherent were indeed applicable regardless of gender, something which itself was consider inherent.

With the over reaching of state and federal governments in the last few decades...I'm sure it won't be long.

Like I said, once it happens, or perhaps even when someone files the papers to have the courts consider overturning a ratified amendment, please let us know. Until then, your concern is grievously premature.

Unfortunately, that line appears only in the Declaration of Independence

Yes, unfortunate indeed. A declaration of Independence stating that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... and then to allow slavery?? an oxymoron...pointing to slavery having to be abolished by our own beliefs and building of a free nation under a republic form of Government. With this kind of statement in our federal papers how could we NOT abolish slavery or view it as illegal?

Guess I've gotten off point....sorry ;)

This not an issue that can be decided by referendum, just as slavery was not. Rights are not subject to mob consensus, they are inalienable, in short, you do not have the right to deny another citizen's rights, no matter how many like minded idiots you recruit.

I think you guys nitpicked the hell out of Dreama's post.

Their post said that anything that deals with rights and equality should never be put to public votes, due to a hostle majority looking to keep said rights from the minority.

He (she?) lamented the fact that the court had to overturn such a decision, even though they agreed with the court.

Thanks Keav....Um yeah She. :) I'm used to getting my posts nit picked..LOL it's ok. Sometimes people like to argue for arguements sake :) I'm not above it..lol :)But you hit it exactly. of course our basic human rights should not be put to a public vote. It's unfortunate that we look / depend on the court to decide....

Why waste the money and time to ask the citizens of a state to vote on a matter / any matter if the court is going to overrule it anyway?

So then... time and money should be wasted upfront determining the Constitutionality of all ballot referendums prior to a vote? Remember, it was not a foregone conclusion that the measure would be overturned...and it still faces challenges.

Should state legislators (or even the US Congress) get all purposed legislation pre-approved by the courts to avoid the possibility that some measure they passed won't meet w/ the court's blessing?

Just goes to show you that our republic form of government is deteriorating fast into a dictatorship either by executive power or judicial.

And, I see this case as evidence that our republic form of governance is alive and well. Imperfect as it may seem at times...this is exactly how the referendum process should work.

When you consider the number of ballot initiatives passed in CA...vs the number challenged after passage...I see no evidence that we are "deteriorating fast into a dictatorship either by executive power or judicial."

I am however,very much against the court overruling the people of any state. Gay marriage should never have been put on a ballot in the first place.

Isn't instituting limits or controls on the scope of the referendum process available to the people a form of preemptively overruling the people?

Their post said that anything that deals with rights and equality should never be put to public votes, due to a hostle majority looking to keep said rights from the minority.

He (she?) lamented the fact that the court had to overturn such a decision, even though they agreed with the court.

Well, not quite. Her original bitch was that the court overturned Prop8.Yes, she said that it shouldn't have been put on the ballot in the first place. I think we can all agree with that (putting wedge social issues on ballots seems to be a GOP tactic). And yes, she said she agreed with the court's decision... right after bitching about the court's decision. She says is clearly right here:

I am however,very much against the court overruling the people of any state.

I mean, wtf? Do you agree with the court's decision or not, for crying out loud? If so, quit complaining.

.....just walk away.

What you said makes sense, but the RWNJ will use the ole' "its a free country. why do I have to blah, blah, blah" nonsense! Remember Separation of Church and State is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion in their double talkin,' two-faced ideology..They'll respect our laws as long as it is in their favor, otherwise they claim they are doing god's work..

It is a free country and people have every right to have any opinion they want on gay marraige or a host of any other issues, what people don't have a right to do it physically attack each other. I don't care if it's hand to hand combat or glitter bombs, both are wrong in my eyes.

The most violent act gay people have done is throw "glitter bombs."

While glitter bombs may be harmless, someone throwing something at someone who doesn't know what it is, might just find a punch in the face just out of self defense. Glitter bombs aren't right either. If you don't like what someone is saying walk away.

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

GLITTER BOMB!

Umm, okay. I always that the most vile of people like Hitler, Stalin, animal and child abusers would be in hell (if there is one), but you go with that one if it makes you happy.

Sammy-2678587 - Should have known that you wouldn't have heard of Dante Alighieri.

How about this -- "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke

Ringing any bells? Walking away from evil is not the answer. You have to fight against evil - not with violence (unless there is no other choice) - but with persistence and a lack of tolerance for their attempts to convert the world to their thinking.

Evil works hard to get what it wants -- so the righteous need to work even harder.

Should have known that you wouldn't have heard of Dante Alighieri.

Why?

"All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."

-

I'm sorry am I supposed to be living my life by his words?

See here's my motto, you can quote it also if you want to. "This is America where people are free to live their lives however they want to, including accepting, hating, loving, living, caring for, speaking up for, speaking out against, etc, etc, whatever they choose to. People in America do NOT have the right to physically attack anyone for any reason other then self defense. What one chooses to fight for, give thier money to or stand against is up to each individual to choose without someone else telling them how they should be living their life. What's important to one is not going to be important to another."

I stand against physical violence for any one reason other then self defense, whatever other cause I may or may not support, as with all others, is mine (or thier) business.

Sammy,

My point is there is a big difference between a passive aggressive act, such as glitter bombing, and physical assault, such as punching someone in the face. Glitter bombing leaves nothing more than glitter behind after the act. A physical assault leaves behind physical injuries and mistrust of strangers after the act..

Of the two, which is the more offensively violent act?

While I agree that glitter bombing is harmless (and probably pretty since I like glitter) the ACT is still an attack and could be posed as a threat if someone that is being bombed doesn't realize what is happening until after the bombing, in which case the person may have struck out in defense already. The point is all physical attacks are best not done.

lol if someone is threatened by glitter, they have some issues to work out.

If the glitter gets in their eyes and harms their eyes is it still okay to attack people with glitter bombs?

But at least one medical authority is saying that so called glitter bombs are no laughing matter, and in rare cases can lead so serious medical problems, up to and including blindness.

That doesn't sound harmless to me.

After reading more about it I change my stance glitter bombing can possibly be dangerous.

Sammy,

I will go out on a limb here and say that the student columnist would have preferred to be glitter bombed instead of randomly punched in the face by a couple of strangers over a disagreement in opinions.

Her actions, actually the lack of, do not support your theory that people will simply react out of "self defense" in the either situation; glitter bombing or being physically assaulted.

Perhaps the problem lies with those who seem to have a predisposition to acting out with intolerance and violence. It hard to walk away from or avoid people with this kind of personality. Especially when it is thier intent to do so.

Gays very rarely perpetrate random acts of violence, which is why they use the passive- aggressive form of protesting and why they are usually the victim of violence. (i.e. glitter bombing and hate attacks)

I will go out on a limb here and say that the student columnist would have preferred to be glitter bombed instead of randomly punched in the face by a couple of strangers over a disagreement in opinions.

Agreed. I wonder if they had glitter bombed her if she would be able to make an assault claim. I do believe that someone at a Romney convention was arrested for that very thing. It doesn't matter if it's glitter or a bag of rocks, assault is assault.

Gays very rarely perpetrate random acts of violence

Doesn't mean it never happens and certainly doesn't make it alright when they do.

and I think that kid should be released on no charges. Glitter isnt anything violent, it's like silly stringing someone. A punch to the face by idiots is highly more dangerous, if hit hard enough can you say detached retinas, broken teeth, fractured face, concussion depending, etc. Yeah, glitter is SOOO much worse

I didn't say it was worse I said it is still assault. You think it's fine, because people that you support are doing so then it's ok, but even though punching someone is more dangerous glitter bombs are not without danger and throwing one at someone is still assault. Why is it that assault is alright for gays but not alright for others?

Every New Years Eve, at the stroke of midnight; glitter, balloons, fireworks and confetti begins to fall in celebration of the holiday. By your description, all those people are being assaulted. Strange, I've never heard these annual assaults being reported on the news. 8)

Strange, I've never heard these annual assaults being reported on the news. 8)

Yes, but you are not trying to justify someone getting punched in the face....

In what way am I justifying it? I think all forms of assault are wrong. How about you? People choose to participate in News Years Eve, people do not choose to be on the receiving end of a glitter bomb still making it an assault. Confetti and glitter are not the same thing.

throwing glitter on someone is not assault. Decking them is. If someone threw glitter on me, Id laugh my *** off. It's glitter for christ's sake, not battery acid.

Our judicial system has a variety of degrees that are assigned to the act of "physical assault" that one can be charged with. They range from misdemeanor to felony charges. Guess which one glitter bombing falls under in most states. Most won't even bother trying to prosecute because there is no physical injuries involved!

Confetti and glitter are not the same thing.

That would explain why I mentioned them separately.

People choose to participate in News Years Eve..

Doesn't mean they are prepared for what the party giver has in store for their party. Again, I've yet to read one news article reporting anybody claiming assault by the party favors mentioned above..

Nearly every single GOP presidential candidate has faced the ire of the glitter bomb — a handful of glitter thrown during a campaign event, usually by gay-rights activists who shout a message to go along with it. The candidates, more than once, have brushed off the sparkles and just moved on, maybe making a joke about it like Mitt Romney did when he called it victory "confetti" after being glittered in Minnesota.

But it appears there could be a deterrent to potential glitterers: up to six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.

It is a form of assault. Yes it seems to be less harmful then someone punching someone but it is still assault and 1.) if the glitter caused harm could be prosecuted differently and 2.) if someone was to throw something at someone a person would most like react out of self defense before they knew that it was glitter and they would be well within their right to do so.

I am not the one make excuses for an act of assault you guys are, stating that it's assault but it's only glitter so it's alright.

No I dont think glitter is assault, but decking someone sure is.

No I dont think glitter is assault,

Apparently the law, and others, don't agree with you.

but decking someone sure is.

I agree that punching someone is also assault and if/when they find the person she should be punished accordingly;

Sentencing for simple assault charges may not be as straight forward as one might expect. There are many different issues that can be presented to the court that may affect the penalties. Past violence of the other party, self defense, harassment or stalking by the other party may be seen as mitigating factors to the charges. In addition your attorney can work to move the case to probation or community service and anger management classes, possibly avoiding all issues with jail time.

....make excuses for an act of assault you guys are,...

I speak for no one, but myself, thank you very much. However, like you and I, they are simply speaking their opinion, which they are entitled to. But as you seem stuck on the one-assault-is-the-same mentality, allow me to clarify, again, the difference in approach to opposition gays use in comparison to the heterosexuals.

Gay and lesbians follow the same rules as anyone else when planning a protest. Such as parades, stand ins on court steps, create organizations that benefit their cause and attend politically motivated rallies. Yet, the glitter bombs are rarely used in all their events combined. Any violence that breaks out at parades are usually due to the"anti-gay" protesters that intentially go there to spout their religious propaganda. (Who doesn't see this as a bad idea? Notice there is no walking away but walking at!)

Heterosexuals have been known to feel threatened and react out in violence against gays and lesbians. The Hate Crime law sound familiar? It covers more than just religion. This added portion to our existing laws allows for that extra punishment for those who use violence as a means to express their hate. This behavior is much more common with the "straight" people than it is with the "gay" people. Statistically speaking, the odds are greater for a "straight person" to react with violent intent than it is a gay or lesbian.

The example you gave for punishment is in regards to political figures, who has heighten security for obvious reason. Please, note they are not there just for the gay people. (Fun fact: gay and lesbians make up less than 1% of America's population) The police in my area would be slightly annoyed to be called out for a glitter bombing among us common folk. You might know this but an annoyed officer is not a forgiving officer...

We will just have to disagree on it. In my opinion it is assault as well, on the same level with punching someone, no, but a form of assault none the less.

I still say everyone should leave each other the hell alone. There are things I don't agree with but I don't ever go out of my way to confront people about there opinions, and I don't feel the need to assault anyone with my fists, a weapon or with glitter.

Agreed to disagree.

I was raised with the motto of "we don't start a fight ever, but if one finds you, finish it as best you can." Thankfully, outside of a few siblings (who started it.!!), I've never had a reason good enough for me to do so. But I know because of those siblings, that if I have to, I can. 8)

But I know because of those siblings, that if I have to, I can. 8)

I don't know the first thing about fighting I just attempt to never get myself into a place or position where I might have to defend myself, that's the best I got.

It would have been nice if this girl had known karate or something and had been able to turn the tables on the girl that punched her, then maybe she would think again before assaulting someone.

now THAT would have been funny to see.

Erin you know heir RWNJ how? My GF is Completely liberal in almost everything but is against abortion........

Yea she no way tells anyone what to do on it. Its her Choice. But Erin seems to thing only people on the right are against abortion that just is true not even close.

No: Erin isn't talking about anyone being "against abortion". She's talking about people who are against reproductive rights. Big difference.

Equality is not something you vote on. That's ridiculous. People didn't vote on whether to end slavery.. we got our s--t together and fixed the inequality.

The Constitution provides that no person can be denied equal protection of the laws. Regardless of whether a majority of the voters in a state favor a law that would deny equal protection does not matter in our system. It did not matter in the case that held that prohibiting interracial marriages violated equal protection and it should not matter here. The presence or absence of a "right to marriage" means nothing since the right is not to marriage but to equal protection of the law. The entire purpose behind having a written constitution with certain enumerate rights if to prevent the usurpation of rights by a majority. Saying that a judge should have nothing to say evidences a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution and our system of government.

There is a very specific and well-defined way people can vote to deprive civil rights in this country: It requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, then majority vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures. The stringency of this is deliberate. It is ludicrous to assert that a simple majority of one state's voters should have the same effect as what our Constitution says a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and then majority vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures would have.

If you're straight, you have to pay a premium to remain single because you have the option of getting a discount if you marry.

Actually, marriage isn't always an option for everyone. Many people, for a variety of reasons, cannot marry. And, even if it was always an option, so what? Singles have to pay fees their entire lives because of it? Nonsense.

You either argue for the separation of church and state or you don't. The separation means removing all things marriage from government, period.

Wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Straight people ALL have the legal capacity to enter into a marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

Ah yes, legal capacity. If you'd stop and just think about what I'm saying, you'd realize your argument is highly offensive to many people who would die to marry, but cannot. And tell me, why do married folks deserve to pay less? Less in government affairs and private business as well, so justify it.

why do married folks deserve to pay less?

How do married folks pay less??? You do realize it was not that long ago that married couples paid more in federal income taxes than 2unmarried people living together.

revz, I think you are missing the entire point of marriage. I have yet to meet any straight people who gave tax breaks as the reason for marriage. I have yet to meet any gay couples who want to get married for the tax break. It isn't because of fiscal reasons, it is for so many rights that are involved in marriage that protect a loving couple. It is for the right to have the relationship recognized by the State. Marriage isn't about a tax break, it is about two people in a committed relationship that want to share the rest of their lives together. If you can't find someone to marry, that is not anyone's fault but the person that stares at you in the mirror. Maybe instead of spending your time on this site, you might want to consider a dating site. Maybe instead of spending your time here, you should spend some time on yourself.

It isn't because of fiscal reasons, it is for so many rights that are involved in marriage that protect a loving couple

Tell me it's not at all about fiscal reasons? Come on. I understand there are other reasons too, all of which should have no ties to marriage but instead a more robust next of kin system.

Maybe instead of spending your time on this site, you might want to consider a dating site. Maybe instead of spending your time here, you should spend some time on yourself.

I have the most incredible woman you could ever imagine, thank you. And, I'm as altruistic and compassionate as anyone I know, hence the civil rights argument I'm putting forth. You have judged me entirely incorrectly, which is nothing new for me. 10-20 years from now you will understand my position entirely, because it will be held by the majority.

If you can't find someone to marry, that is not anyone's fault but the person that stares at you in the mirror

Tell that to someone who's face has been severely burned by fire and is laughed at and scorned.

Tell me it's not at all about fiscal reasons? Come on. I understand there are other reasons too, all of which should have no ties to marriage but instead a more robust next of kin system.

Before you go further, you're going to have to prove that the existing next-of-kin system, itself, is in any way robust. All indications are that, at least with regard to matters of financial inheritance, there is nothing about the current system that serves society's best interests, regardless of whether such primacy with regard to inheritance is granted to homosexuals or not.

This is strictly a matter of fairness, providing equal protection under the law to all people, not just heterosexuals. Bringing up the "robustness" of the next-of-kin system is a red herring.

If your woman is so great, then she will not care what you look like. If your woman is so great, she will not care about a disability. If your woman is so great, why don't you marry her? If you chose not to marry your great woman, then don't fault others who want to marry. Unless your incredible woman is not real, but an illusion or inflatable.

If your woman is so great, then she will not care what you look like. If your woman is so great, she will not care about a disability. If your woman is so great, why don't you marry her? If you chose not to marry your great woman, then don't fault others who want to marry. Unless your incredible woman is not real, but an illusion or inflatable.

You have made numerous assumptions about me and my woman based on a position I'm taking. When did I ever disclose my marital status and history?

Perhaps a more healthy approach and mindset (doctor) would be one where you think about what I'm saying, and not attacking me for what you believe to be my social statuses.

When did I ever disclose my marital status and history?

Why am I, a single person, forced to pay a premium to remain single?

I await your next falsehood or defense of falsehoods.

I await your next falsehood or defense of falsehoods.

Glad you think you have it figured out. I had no idea you would use that... Jeez. I'm assuming a role for the sake of the argument and because it shines the spotlight brightly on those who attack my status versus my position.

Really bad excuse for deception. In fact, I think I believe the single person status is most likely true.

Those who argue by assuming a role identify early that they are using an example instead of just go about using deception.

Your status is unimportant, unless you make it part of your argument. A good position stands on its own without the need for lies.

So you don't believe in capitalism? Profit/money is not a motivator? Really?

Your two questions are completely separate from each other but you cannot seem to understand that. No, I don't believe in capitalism, yes I believe money is a motivator.

So I answered your question about why married people get a tax break. You don't like my answer. So you call me a bigot.

Actually, I didn't call you a bigot. Your position is ripe with bigotry though. Thanks for the COH threats too. I'm sure that's a much easier reaction than sitting on your hands for a few minutes and doing some soul searching.

Grade A bigotry.

Actually, I didn't call you a bigot.

Care to try again. By the way, making a false accusation of CoH is very serious.

Sorry for the double-post while logging in.

I really do hope so but I'm also not getting any younger. This needs to happen soon.