Actually, I'm the one treating them like everyone else if you really think about it. What they are asking for is to be given new rights that no one has right now. Come to think about it, everyone screams about how gays are being denied their rights without every saying what those rights actually are. They can do everything I can do. The reason I don't give half a damn about this is that I don't care whether someone can marry the person they are screwing. I'll boil it down, I absolutely, positively, 100% do not care about the love-factor in this. I want to roll on the ground laughing when someone says we should radically overhaul the marriage laws because of love. Reeks like bad daytime soap opera.

They don't have the right to marry the people they want to. Any straight person has that right.

They want their marriages recognized by the state, which is absolutely trivial for straight people.

And straight people shouldn't be afforded special rights simply because they are (or claim to be) straight.

Hmmmmm, problem here, namely that living together and calling each other 'dear' is not being married. To gay guys who do that are not married and therefor I am not "refusing to recognize their marriage". Can't ignore what doesn't exist man

People can and do get married with no governmental involvement. But if they want all of the governmental rights and priviledges, they have to "make it official".

Another one bites the dust: I'm sensing a trend here
 

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that struck down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, who ruled last year that the measure was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things.

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the amendment in 2000.

The court said the amendment ``and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.''

Attorney General Jon Bruning argued earlier that the ban should be restored because it ``does not violate any person's freedom of expression or association.''

Opponents of the ban ``are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and generally participate in the political process however they see fit,'' he said. ``Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, just as supporters ... did.'':footpyth:

What the queers should be pushing is the fact that if they marry, they can't collect all their Social Security, only from one(I think the greater), plus a % for the spouse.

That ought to sway the people that are worried about SS, unless they are bigots. And if they are, nothing is going to sway them. But the people on the fence, or just uncomfortable with change, might buy a practical plus for themselves. :idea:

More stupid bigots at work... nice to see that Nebraska & Tennessee have no hunger, no economic issues, no welfare mothers, no meth to deal with... yup, this is what their lawmakers need to be spending their time on. Idiots.

Nebraska gay marriage ban reinstated

In Nebraska and Tennessee, More Setbacks to Gay Rights

Rzen...don't you know that who sticks what into whom is the most pressing issue facing our planet? Why, if it weren't for all this godless sodomy, we'd be living in a Paradise.

Heck, the godless sodomy is the only reason I get out of bed in the morning! Oh, and coffee.:morncoff:

bumpity boooo...

Time to revisit this subject as there is going to be another vote very soon..

The case for outing closeted politicians
Link

Interesting... I wonder if that last part includes Weiner's wiener

Maybe if sexting legislation became a wedge issue.

I was probably one of a half-dozen people across the country who watched the first Republican Presidential Candidate Debate in New Hampshire on Monday.

I was rather pleased when Ron Paul said something I'd been saying about marriage (not just gay) for years ... the state needs to be out of the marriage business. It's a religious contract. Churches should be able to hitch whomever (with legal ability to consent) they want.

The problem with Paul's position is that it does not address the numerous legal rights associated with marriage, which is also the problem with some states domestic partner laws.