How about this. Create a separate legal entity called a "Civil Union" that has all the same tax, inheritance, etc. etc. incentives. Allow Civil Unions for any two, or hey, why not, any number, of consenting adults. Bingo. Now there is zero difference in entitlements between hetero and homo legal entities. And we even included polygamy, so that handles the next step.

Why should we be thankful that a bunch of vile little tax exempt lobbying groups get to hate gay people with impunity?

You celebrate the stupidest things.

"Do you just not care whether or not what you write has any basis in fact?"

Polling data and the commentary on this forum indicate otherwise.

Because civil unions are a bureaucratic nightmare for the sake of semantics. I thought conservatives were for government efficiency?

"Why should we be thankful that a bunch of vile little tax exempt lobbying groups get to hate gay people with impunity?

You celebrate the stupidest things."


Freedom of religion is a stupid thing? You're a strange man.

Freedom of religion means the freedom for churches to interfere constantly in the political process to preach their hatred while keeping all their ill-gotten profits from being audited.

I don't get why anyone thinks they can legally impose their religious beliefs on another, regardless of tradition or history. It's a secular state, and was intended that way from the start. I'm sick of this "Christian nation" bull shit.

But you're specifically celebrating freedom of religion not because it allows for cultural diversity and independence of thought but because people get to discriminate against gay people as they please. Yes, that's why you're thankful.

@Tru, you are assuming that everyone follows the Christian view of God, but that's ignoring the fact that nearly every culture has some form of a marriage that far exceeds Christianity. And that aside, Christians do not expect the government to force all people to follow the rules of the bible, so why should they expect all people to follow it's rules on marriage?

As the Pope recently said, God is not a magician with a magic wand, we are where we are today because it was the natural evolution. So if you follow the Pope's word then that would naturally lead to the conclusion that if society is at a point where everyone realizes that preventing gay people from having the same rights as others is wrong, then it is because God has lead society to that point.

So either way, I'm sorry but I don't really buy the whole "Well we made marriage so we can tell others what it should be" argument.

Obviously this is a short version of the multitude of arguments involved but I think I summed up the main points enough for my view to be understood.

Because you would rather lock them up....? For beliefs...? Love your brand of intolerance Putin. Truly the wave of the future.

Putin, I am sure they could pass it soon enough. Faster then gay marriage is getting through. Especially with this ruling now.

Religion is dying a death because it is a tool used abused by the ruling classes to control the masses. As we seek more equality in society we throw off the shackles of institutions that sought not to free the masses, not to give them equality, but to control them..... but people ain't believing that bullshit any more bro'.
Equality and human rights for all is the new kid in town #nuffrespectfortheLGBT.
This must be tough for the old-fashioned God-squad who do not want equality for groups that don't conform to their way of thinking #getoveryourselves.
Christianity is a prejudice that is slowly dying.....

"Because civil unions are a bureaucratic nightmare for the sake of semantics. I thought conservatives were for government efficiency?"

They needn't have been. Simply write the statute to say that a civil union is a legal relationship between two individuals of the same sex with equal legal rights as defined in the statute covering marriage. Boom. Done. Wherever it says "marriage," have "civil union" work just the same. That could have kept "marriage" as the relationship between a man and a woman and at the same time given advocates of same sex marriage virtually everything they ask for.

Again, too late now. But it could have worked out another way.

@KC, it's an insult. Why create a separate legal entity when a perfectly good one already exists unless you want to establish gay marriage as something lesser?

Bull on no legally imposing religious or moral beliefs. Nearly EVERY law, barring tax and traffic, although arguments could be made for those as well, is legislating morality. Why is murder illegal? Because people think it is wrong. Not all people, but just the vast majority. Therefore, that is the majority legislating *their* moral beliefs on others. How barbaric.

"But you're specifically celebrating freedom of religion not because it allows for cultural diversity and independence of thought but because people get to discriminate against gay people as they please. Yes, that's why you're thankful."

How can you have independence of thought if you prohibit people from opposing homosexuality for religious reasons?

I won't apologize for being thankful we have a stop-gap which preserves freedom of conscience from authoritarians like you. Unpopular, even hateful, speech is just as deserving of protection as any other kind. Perhaps even more so.

ghug, and why not redefine murder as stealing? It is equally as valid.

No, I'd prefer to tax churches into non-existence, Thomas Cromwell style.

" am sure they could pass it soon enough"

Doesn't matter how fast they can pass it, it's still a bureaucratic mess. Take the matter of foreign recognition of marriage. Calling it a civil union causes unnecessary confusion, and may result in not having a relationship recognized overseas. That's happened with UK civil unions.

"Unpopular, even hateful, speech is just as deserving of protection as any other kind. Perhaps even more so."

Except you don't actually believe that, you're the first to cheer when people get punished for speech. You just think we should be 'thankful' because rightwingers benefit in this particular instance, and we have to protect the hate speech of those swivel eyed loon comrades of yours.

Right after soup kitchens and pantries? Wow, and I thought liberals were supposed to love the poor...

"Except you don't actually believe that, you're the first to cheer when people get punished for speech. You just think we should be 'thankful' because rightwingers benefit in this particular instance, and we have to protect the hate speech of those swivel eyed loon comrades of yours."

Citation Putin.

"Boom. Done. "

No, not boom done. See the overseas recognition problem. And all for the sake of your stupid feelings.

"No, I'd prefer to tax churches into non-existence, Thomas Cromwell style."

Well you can't. And the American government never can and never will either.

Good thing I wasn't talking about what I could do, Cyrus was insinuating an opinion I didn't hold.

You're insufferable.

"No, I'd prefer to tax churches into non-existence, Thomas Cromwell style."

So... I am insinuating the opinion that you want to... what was it? "tax churches into non-existence"? Yep. That is me. Such an insinuator.

"No, not boom done. See the overseas recognition problem. And all for the sake of your stupid feelings."

What problem is this? Countries which will never recognize gay marriage (Saudi Arabia, to pick one purely at random) will not suddenly do so simply because we cloak a gay couple in the same term as a straight one. For countries, mostly European, which would, it would simply be a matter of providing consular services which address the problem.

As for my "stupid feelings" I already said it's too late to do this. And how intolerant of you, calling someone simply *theoretically* *raising* an argument you don't believe in stupid.

You said I want to lock people up.

That was a question. Notice the *question mark*. Which you failed to clarify. I was asking for confirmation. Way to go Sherlock.

You can call me intolerant all you want, I'm not effected by the trite conservative tactic of calling the enemies of their putrid hate intolerant.

"For countries, mostly European, which would, it would simply be a matter of providing consular services which address the problem."

Oh yes, so very simple, that's why countries which recognize gay marriage like Sweden don't recognize the civil unions of the UK.

"ghug, and why not redefine murder as stealing? It is equally as valid."

They're distinctly different actions with distinctly different punishments. In your hypothetical, a marriage is a subset of a civil union that is legally indistinguishable. There's no reason to have both defined.

Actually I clarified, Sherlock. I said I want to tax churches. That's called clarification.