leejo

Uh...a contract signed while drunk isn't legally binding. My point wasn't that these marriages are illegal, but they are certainly a bastardization of the social institution. Just because this particular piece of funkiness isn't rendered illegal doesn't mean that anything goes.

With regard to the "unnatural" think, I was agreeing with you. Weird, I know.

Finally, I believe homosexuals ARE entitled to protection and equal rights, I just don't know that they can get "married" or that it's required to address whatever "rights" they seem not to have. Guess what? There's a ton of my wife's stuff that companies won't talk to me about, and there are strong medical protections in place such that medical staff often will not discuss her case with me. I guess if I lawyered up and forced the issue and had good cause, I could beat the info out of them, but that would be the case if we were not married and had simply signed some power of atty contracts. I'm not sure what these rights are that we can only solve with marriage, and no-one seems very eager to discuss them in detail. Folks seem to fall back on framing the discussion as either I want marriage or I'm stomping on homosexual rights. What rights?

CingularDuality

FYI, nobody can be forced to honor a power of attorney. It certainly allows for somebody to act in another's stead, but nobody has to allow it. I found this out the hard way when I was in Japan and my brand new wife was trying to take care of some financial stuff right after we got married.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

You know, this statement could be taken so many different ways.

__________________

leejo

That varies by state Cing. For example, in a number of states, a third party who ignores a Durable Power of Attorney without reasonable cause may be held liable for damages (Texas is not one of those states), and in all states, I believe, third parties are protected by acting on a power of attorney in good faith. I wouldn't have a problem, for example, with legislation that expanded the durable power of attorney such that they bind, and protect, third parties in all states. Voila: problem solved, right?

Still, she was your wife! So what "right" was being trampled then? Suppose she had been your good loving man? What would have been different? Legally, I mean.

Pickle

Lets go back to the unnatural argument.

How can homosexuality be "natural" if it does not promote the continuance of the species? Isn't there some scientific theory about that?

__________________

CingularDuality

Well, that's just it... Power of Attorney isn't the same as being married (or in a civil union or whatever you want to call it). The only reason she couldn't take care of these things is because they were not in our name, they were in MY name. They were debts that I had before we got married and that we hadn't yet been able to add her name to...
Ummm, it's natural because it occurs in nature? What's your definition of natural?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

xanathemax

lol, uhh, not quite. Like Cingular said, everything that occurs in nature is natural. Besides, considering the number of Republican candidates that didn't raise their hand for the "Do you believe in evolution?" question at the debate (Tom Tancredo, how I loathe thee), I somehow doubt this would be their line of reasoning. And Clarence Thomas is an egomaniac and a sexist who never should have been confirmed.

This thread is pretty amazing, now I remember why I try not to look in this forum.

leejo

You don't have to be married to do any of that. I have been on a mortgage, checking account, credit card, and so on, with people to whom I was not married.

And again, now that I AM married, I have called about a credit card on which Mrs "jo" is the primary, and my name is "jo" and I'm listed on the account with as many privileges as they'll grant the non-primary, and they STILL won't discuss things with me. Hell being gay would be easier in many ways: since my wife has a weird name for a woman - Kyle - and since we know each other's ssn, birthdays, super secret codes, Mothers maiden name, and so on, I have learned to hang up and call back and just say "hi, this is kylejo" and get it done. I couldn't do that if her name were Susan, but I could do it if I were living with my main man Steve.

But all of this still doesn't answer my question: what right was denied?

With respect to my most esteemed fellow TG member and good friend xanathemax, that post is retarded. Clarence Thomas never should have had his name dragged through the mud for political expedience in an astonishing revelation of exactly how much the liberals care about blacks. Here is a man who rose from poverty and racism to stand on the brink of one of the highest legal positions in the land, and all the democrats could do, and all you can do, is call him names. Everyone would love him if he could sing, dance, or dunk and said "Bush hates black people", I feel certain.

CingularDuality

What right was denied when? To my wife? I was just pointing out that Power's of Attorney aren't worth jack if somebody doesn't want to honor them. So don't offer those up as putting gay couples on equal footing with married couples. That still doesn't let gay folks into hospital rooms that are restricted to immediate family (sometimes by law). It doesn't help with any of the insurance issues, or the probate issues. Man, if I sat and thought about it, I could probably go on and on about the things that married folks get just by having a marriage license, while gay couples either can't get, or have to jump through hoops to get.


And I always find it amusing how people claim that Republicans don't care about this minority or that minority, and then when a minority is elevated to the highest position in our nation by a Republican, it doesn't matter because he or she has this flaw or that flaw.

Clarence Thomas is a damn fine Justice. (No, not "damn fine" like Britney Spears used to be, you sick, twisted freak...)

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Kerostasis

Your commentary here is slightly confusing, Cing, so let me make sure I understand you correctly:

In general, you don't feel accusations of Republican distaste for minorities and minority rights are accurate, but in the specific area of gay rights you do feel those accusations are accurate. Is that correct?

__________________

leejo

And I'm all for fixing those issues. And in fact, I don't need to produce a marriage license to see my wife at the hospital, I just need to say I'm there to see my wife. Disney and a number of businesses now provide coverage for domestic partners, so the private sector is addressing the insurance issue. And so on.

What right is the right that is described in the constitution and that requires the federal government to impose a sweeping redefinition of a centuries-old social institution to apply to homosexuals. Cause I don't see it. Which article says the hospital has to open the door so I can see my wife in a room, or compels private business to cover employees spouses?

Pickle

Well, if homosexual activity that occurs in animals is natural and should therefore be accepted into our society it follows I should be able to kill my children without reprocussions. In fact, society should thank me for killing my weak son because it strengthens my part of the animal kingdom. I should also be allowed to practice cannibalism without society's disapproval. In fact, I saw this old guy get attacked by young street thugs the other day. They were really beating him down bad. Blood was everywhere and he was obviously going to die. I ran away because I didn't want it to be me. It's all good.

__________________

leejo

There's an old New Yorker cartoon in which a guard dog says to a lady dog "I'm sorry, ma'am. I'm sure you are who you say you are, but I still have to sniff your butt".

Look I don't care about the whole natural unnatural thing. I cherish and respect my gay friends and want them to love who they please how they please. I also don't want someone telling my what my lady and I can do in our home. NOYB. I have done things that I PROMISE no animal in nature could pull off and it hit the nail on the damn head.

I just don't know what "rights" we're talking about and am not convinced that we have to redefine "marriage" to accommodate "gay rights". And I SURE don't appreciate a bunch of overly-judgemental busybody assclowns telling me I have it in for homosexuals because of this. They couldn't be further from the truth.

xanathemax

Thomas has frequently voiced his complete disregard for stare decisis, which is a necessary component of any federal judicial branch and the only thing preventing radical judicial decisions from being handed down on a whim. He's not a conservative, he's a radical fascist with no concern for judicial procedure. He rarely attends oral arguments, he makes his decisions based not on judicial principle but on personal politics, and he's far too vindictive and holds too many grudges for a person in a position of power such as his.

leejo

I'm having trouble sifting through the hyperbole and personal smear and slander to get to anything you've said that could possibly have a shred of evidence to back it up.

That sounds pretty impressive but it's also patently untrue. The Supreme Court is exactly that - Supreme. They need not be constrained by stare decisis if they choose. Or do you disagree with Brown v. Board of Education because they broke with the well-established-and-tested Plessy v. Ferguson? There are many examples in which you'd be perfectly happy to see the SCOTUS break with precedent, I bet.

Silly.

Oh yeah? Where'd you hear that?

More silly.