Article

2004-02-18

Monopoly money authorized for gay marriage liscences

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve from Relto 2004-02-18 9:53:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 loonies in sf - i might just have to raid my daughters monopoly money and take a drive north.

Posted by Dan 2004-2-18 10:37:17 AM|| 2004-2-18 10:37:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 They can stamp out a million of those gay marriage licenses! They are not worth the paper they are printed on. It's like a 'Worlds Greatest Dad' certificate and carries as much legal weight. Newsome is mocking the law and homos at the same time! Let's see the first time they try to use it as a legal document...NOT! I am starting my own 'Marry your Beast' license. Send me $25 and I will send you a license that says you can marry your dog, cat, chicken, or whatever you like.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-18 11:02:32 AM|| 2004-2-18 11:02:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You guys don't think that Barbie dumped Ken for Skipper, do you?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-18 11:22:32 AM|| 2004-2-18 11:22:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Super Hose...good point - But, if so, I'm afraid that I am to blame. As I think back on my ol' Skipper and Barbie - I can't help but wonder if those butch haircuts I once gave them, had an impact.

Posted by anonymouse 2004-2-18 12:06:16 PM|| 2004-2-18 12:06:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Wow, I'm a pretty regular reader so I'm used to some of the interesting commentary posted by others. Having said that, the crap being posted by people like "Cyber Sarge" is just plain stupid and hatefull. Jesus, why would anyone CARE what other people do with their lives? I say focus on your own and let other people live theirs.

Posted by Vis 2004-2-18 12:56:37 PM|| 2004-2-18 12:56:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Vis, brace yourself for people calling you gay and/or troll just because you disagree with them on the same sex marriage issue.

Not being Greek yourself, they'll of course have to come up with somewhat more imaginative insinuations than what they came up with when dealing with me.

As for Cyber Sarge, he's probably just peeved that a husband is no longer defined as "sperm donor" and a wife is no longer defined as "baby factory" -- and so marriage as a whole no longer defined as nothing more than "who's the father".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-18 1:29:48 PM|| 2004-2-18 1:29:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Um, Vis, Aris, those "marriage certificates" aren't legal; they were issued in contradiction to state law. They're NOT worth the paper they're printed on.

And, really, no one cares what others do with their lives. It's just a lot of people don't think society should be forced to approve.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-2-18 1:38:14 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-2-18 1:38:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Thank you Vis fro the diagnosis! I always enjoy it when some homo calls me hateful for my comments. I could CARE LESS what you do with your âLife Partnerâ or âButt Buddyâ or âGerman Shepardâ or âPet Gerbil.â in you own home and behind closed doors. However homos seem to crave (need) recognition from me, by getting a âmarriage licenseâ that really isnât one. Whatâs next? Getting a Catholic baptismal certificate from a Anglican gay priest? If the homos donât care what MOST people think about them, how come they need a marriage license? You have all the rights of a married couple in California, why do you need a piece of paper? Legal fact is that those âMarriage Licensesâ are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are not a legal document outside that courthouse all the homos are gathered around to exchange vows. So go ahead and exchange vows with Bruce, Fluffy, Fido, or Prissy just donât think that I have to agree with it (Because I donât!). Your are not mocking marriage, you are being mocked BY the Mayor (and the rest of the country). End Rant! (Now that was kind of hateful)

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-18 1:42:43 PM|| 2004-2-18 1:42:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Jesus man, I'm straight and with kids. You seem to have a lot of hate towards other people.

Posted by Vis 2004-2-18 1:45:16 PM|| 2004-2-18 1:45:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Yah vis, a lot of hate goes around. There are Gay marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan who are among the best voices wrt to the war on terror. Some gays have distanced from the left and see that the mullahs are the worst enemies of gay people. Whenever i see something like this, on a site like this, just as when i see ANYTHING about Mel Gibson, my instant suspicion is of a troll attempting to divide.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-18 2:09:41 PM|| 2004-2-18 2:09:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Yah vis, a lot of hate goes around. There are Gay marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan who are among the best voices wrt to the war on terror. Some gays have distanced from the left and see that the mullahs are the worst enemies of gay people. Whenever i see something like this, on a site like this, just as when i see ANYTHING about Mel Gibson, my instant suspicion is of a troll attempting to divide.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-18 2:09:58 PM|| 2004-2-18 2:09:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Yah vis, a lot of hate goes around. There are Gay marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan who are among the best voices wrt to the war on terror. Some gays have distanced from the left and see that the mullahs are the worst enemies of gay people. Whenever i see something like this, on a site like this, just as when i see ANYTHING about Mel Gibson, my instant suspicion is of a troll attempting to divide.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-18 2:10:21 PM|| 2004-2-18 2:10:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Vis, Cyber Sarge, is a long-time resident of California. The only thing that makes him angry is the Judiciary legislating from the bench. Think of being a strict constructionist that is continually force fed a steady diet of outrageous 9th district rulings - and then have Justice O'Connor declare half of their rulings to be valid with the most mind-numbingly torturous logic not constructed by a grounded teenager arguing to be allowed to attend a Motley Crue concert.

Cyber made the mistake of actually reading the Consitution and some of the Federalist Papers. I did once also but I gave up the anger in a 12 step program.

If you truly read a lot of Rantburg, you are sure to find an adversarial view on most subjects. For example, I think that legalizing drugs will result in crackhead semi-truck drivers running through neighborhoods streets. Many other Rantburgers disagree with my viewpoint. Please understand that Rantburg is used as scream therapy for myslef and others.

With respect to gay marriage the prevailing views at this site tend towards -
1. What does that issue have to do with the price of AK-47's in Peshewar?
2. Why do these people want to tell me about their sex lives?
3. Why is validation by a jerk like me important enough for these clowns to hound me ceaselessly for my approval?
4. If you just want government benefits, why don't you just mix and match guys and girls between various relationships until you get a girl's name and a boy's name on each marriage certificate?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-18 2:17:45 PM|| 2004-2-18 2:17:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Vis/LH/Aris, Let me put this in terms that we can all understand:
1) California passed (overwhelming) a proposition that defines marriage between a man and a woman.
2) SF cannot overrule that. No matter what gay Gavin says the licenses are worthless because they are not legal.
3) I have coworkers and friends that are gay (SURPRISE). Btw NONE are running to SF to get hitched.
4) I accept my friends/coworkers because WHO they are, not because WHAT they are.
5) They is NO ONE on earth that can make me like/love/accept something/some one simply because THEY think I should. I reserve the right to like whomever I want.
6) I do not feel the need to parade around the office or town in a t-shirt with a blue square on it. I like to keep people guessing as to my âorientation.â I expect other to do the same. I call this: Donât Ask, Donât Tell, DONâT FRIGGIN CARE policy.
7) I wish nothing but warm fuzzy fun for the gays/homos/fags/dikes whatever (I am not PC) in their endeavor. But be honest no one is going to honor this document other than the City of San Francisco.

P.S. Vis if you disagree with me, defend your position. âHe is mean!â is not a defense itâs a whine.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-18 2:52:56 PM|| 2004-2-18 2:52:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 It all came down to a semicolon, the judge said.
Sometimes it's difficult to discern straight wire service reports from Scrappleface satire.
Calif. judges put off gay marriage ruling

Posted by GK 2004-2-18 3:15:06 PM|| 2004-2-18 3:15:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 yah, so the licences issued by SF, arent recognized by the state. Yeah, i got that. Its some move by SF to embarrass the state, make a point, whatever. So whats to get excited about? I dont care all that much either.

Re this "What does that issue have to do with the price of AK-47's in Peshewar? 2. Why do these people want to tell me about their sex lives? 3. Why is validation by a jerk like me important enough for these clowns to hound me ceaselessly for my approval? 4. If you just want government benefits, why don't you just mix and match guys and girls between various relationships until you get a girl's name and a boy's name on each marriage certificate?"

1. Yeah, i agree, peshawar
2. Why do straight people like to do the same? Is THAT what i was doing when mrs LH and i got a marriage license? All they want is the same as what the rest of us have got. Now if you take the libertarian position, IE lets get the state out of the marriage biz entirely, i could see that.
3. they dont want your approval - they want the states approval - see 2.
4. Its alot more complicated than that - eg if adam and steve a real couple, and mary and eve the other, and adam and eve marry, and steve and mary marry, and steve gets hit by a truck and enters a coma, all of a sudden its mary, NOT adam, who gets to decide who visits Steve, and talks to the docs about what should be done, etc.

And dont give me that God meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Sure he did. He also, as per my religion, didnt consider a marriage between a Jew and a gentile (who hasnt converted to Judaism) a valid marriage - and if two jews are married, and they get a civil divorce but not a valid Jewish divorce and one remarries, thats NOT a valid marriage either - it is in fact bigamy. But thats ok - state sanctioned marriage is JUST a human institution its not Kiddushin (sanctification - REAL marriage) so if the state finds it convenient to say, sanction marriage between a Jew and a gentile (and i for one, am damned glad it does - i dont WANT the state discriminating between religions, even if the net effect were to enforce jewish religios law) then we recognize those "civil unions" and we DONT allow a member of one to enter a kiddushin - since "dina d'malchuta dina" - the law of the state IS law. ditto if the state decides to sanction marriage between two men or two women (at least IMHO - dont speak for all my coreligionists on this)

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-18 3:59:17 PM|| 2004-2-18 3:59:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Cyber Sarge, you forgot (8) which says:
8) Because people disagree with you, or find your words hateful, or whatever, you see fit to assume that their sexual orientation is homosexual (as other people here have recently also done), which I assume gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside as it confirms that only gays (or homos as you call them -- do you also call black people "niggers" since you are not PC, btw?) can disagree with you on this issue?

and also
9) You repeatedly compare gay marriages to marriage with pets, thus lowering gay people to the level of animals, thus paralleling the behaviour of southern slavers towards black people or Nationalist-Socialists towards jewish people, both of which liked to deny humanity to their hated groups.

That's your right ofcourse, in a free society to use as many such parallels as you like -- and it's our right to consider you despise-worthy because of that.

I like to keep people guessing as to my "orientation."

Do you keep *all* people guessing as to your orientation, including e.g. your wife/girlfriend/fiancee, so on? Or do you make some exceptions?

"I expect other to do the same."

Keep on expecting it. :-)

As for the legality of the document, I really have no idea, or interest in it -- I found you despise-worthy for wholly different and less legalistic reasons.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-18 4:02:59 PM|| 2004-2-18 4:02:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 As Fred sagely said some months ago, "As long as they don't make it mandatory, it doesn't bother me." (or words to that effect)

Posted by 11A5S 2004-2-18 4:09:40 PM|| 2004-2-18 4:09:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Although the gay marriage thing is a big don't care for me, I am curious, from a common law perspective, about the effect of the legalization of gay marriage on polygamy. Seriously. I understand enough about the law to know that pederasty, sex with a minor, and incest are considered to be socially harmful and that the precendent of gay marriage will have no effect on the laws concerning those practices. But what about polygamy (or polyandry for that matter)? It is between consenting adults. It is victimless. Kids have been growing up in polygamous families for millenia with no apparent harm. Any lawyers out there?

Posted by 11A5S 2004-2-18 4:18:36 PM|| 2004-2-18 4:18:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 its constitutional law that matters, 11, not common law. im no lawyer, but i know that common law can be overriden, in the US (as in the UK) by statute. Thus common law says "caveat emptor" and statute says "implied warranty". Etc, etc. The question is where (eg Massachusetts) judges have said banning gay marriage is discrimination and violates the state constitution, would that same position hold towards polygamy. Since all such decisions thus far have been under STATE cons, that would i presume be a state specific question. Note also that state cons are much easier to amend as a general rule than the US con. Note that if, OTOH, a state legislature CHOOSES to allow gay marriage, that dont mean they necessarilly have to allow anything else. States have some right to be arbitrary (allowing felons to vote, say, doesnt mean they have to allow 12 year olds to vote, even if the latter is a better idea than the former)

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-18 4:37:49 PM|| 2004-2-18 4:37:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 You repeatedly compare gay marriages to marriage with pets, thus lowering gay people to the level of animals, thus paralleling the behaviour of southern slavers towards black people or Nationalist-Socialists towards jewish people, both of which liked to deny humanity to their hated groups.
Well, I kinda lump homosexuals (of both persuasions - why do "lesbians" have to have a separate name for their perversion?) and people who screw animals in the same pot because both acts are a) disgusting to me, b) "unnatural", in that sex between anything but a man and a woman is just plain unnatural, and c) because it's all the same kind of sick behavior - "I'm different, and I express my difference by doing things no sane person would do". If you feel differently, then that's your bag. Have fun with it. It won't change my opinion, and it won't stop me from lumping all "unnatural" sexual behavior into the same turdbowl. This in no way satisfies the rest of your tortured and illogical sentence. People can draw conclusions without trying to "match" the stupidity of previous generations. You're comparing apples and oranges, and doing a damned lousy job of it.

As for the rest of your rant, you're drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence - not a very smart thing to do. It can get you in real trouble in a civilized debate among intelligent individuals.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-2-18 4:47:23 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-2-18 4:47:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 CyberSarge: Gay folks and their enablers such as Vis, as you well know, are trying to sell us coastal development property in Nevada, and this has been going on a long time.

My views are as follows: Whether it is done in public or private, homosexuality is exhibitionism and is therefore behavior that is iminently changable. It can be hidden from view and quite often is, but with gays believing they have sold the 99 percent of the rest of us this rotten ass bill of good based on a Big Lie, it it just plain old in your face immorality.

There are no genes involved.

There is no birth defect.

It is simply rotten behavior, based primarily on ego and a choice.

In most instances of having to view homosexuality purveyed in the media and elsewhere I have to ask myself, why do I need to know this and the answer is simple: I don't and I shouldn't.

As for rights, I think homosexuals have rights, but they also have obligations, and one of the most important obligations is to propogate children for the country they live in. If they cannot live up to this simple obligation there is nothing the state should do to give homosexuals rights of any kind and that most certainly includes a marriage license.

Posted by badanov 2004-2-18 4:52:31 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-2-18 4:52:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Aris, Scuse me if I offended with my brusque wording. No I do not walk around using disparaging word to describe my fellow black citizens. Dikes, Fags, and Homo are the descriptive words used by the âgay community.â There are the âDavis Dykesâ, âFresno Fagsâ etc. gay groups in the Sacramento valley (I am not making these names up). Now if they describe themselves as dykes or fags. Am I forbidden to use those terms? The equivalency of these gay marriage to beast/man marriage? That is a matter of degree. If you think itâs ok for a man to marry another man, why not a man and his dog? Man and his sister (already in West Virginia)? Man and Mom? Man and child? All are based on a sexual orientation. Which is wrong and which is right? How far down the slippery slope do we need to go before we say enough? The people of California thought they had decided this a few years ago, but I guess liberals have no use for any law they disagree with.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-18 5:00:19 PM|| 2004-2-18 5:00:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Bad - so straights who have no kids shouldnt marry?

CS - those words are used by a minority of radicals to shock. kind of like when rappers use the word 'nigger'.

re changing the law - californians and others thought they decided years ago that estate taxes were a good thing, etc. Folks have the right to protest what they dont like. If the city of SF wants to protest by handing out docs with no legal meaning, whats wrong with that? (apart from the monetary cost)

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-18 5:27:32 PM|| 2004-2-18 5:27:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 it is against california state law for same sex mariages. so the paper is worthless. i do not hate anyone , unless your a rag head who thinks all no believes should die, but homosexuality does not sit well with me. i live in a democracy - so when the guy population is majority then they can legislate their views. but until follow the law of the land. San Francisco has a long history of subverting state and national laws and a long history of being bitch slapped back in place by sacramento!

Posted by Dan 2004-2-18 5:31:23 PM|| 2004-2-18 5:31:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Cute point.

Straights have the inherent capability to produce children and the prefereable relations to at least raise children. As I said though, there is an obligation, one gays folks can NEVER EVER fulfill not matter how hard they try.

Your argument is another gay-inspired canard, totally irrelevent to my contention of there being an obligation.

To repeat: No matter how many time gay folks engages in sex, they have zero chance, as long as they engage in sex with a partner of their gender, to have children, and they absolutely cannot produce a conventional and preferred environment of one father and one mother.

As it is, it is iminently preferable for a childless couple to adopt if they are man and woman, so the child will grow up to understand there are some things they must do, that there are obligations they must fulfill, one of many being they must marry someone of the opposite sex only if they are to receive a license for said union.

The state has no interest in endorsing unions of exhibitionists for any number of reasons, nor should it.

Your mentioning of childless couples is truly reprehensible because possessing a marriage license requires something so easy that were it not for gay folks, it could be considered trivial: relations with someone of the opposite sex. It is something gay folks can do at their very whim.

Posted by badanov 2004-2-18 5:40:09 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-2-18 5:40:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 badanov> "As for rights, I think homosexuals have rights, but they also have obligations, and one of the most important obligations is to propogate children for the country they live in"

How Islamic of you. It's Islam that has child-bearing be an obligation of the people. Christianity on the other hand has used celibacy as the ideal -- hence the celibate priesthood. Check out Paul's letters if you don't believe me.

Anyway, by your own argument, would you say that lesbians willing to become baby factories through artificial insemination, should be allowed to marry, since they fulfil their supposed "obligation to the state"?

And should citizenship be perhaps removed from celibate priests?

Cyber Sarge> Slippery Slope? Oh, alas, no slipery slope where I'm concerned. To consider "gay marriage" the matter of a slippery slope you already have to assume that it exists on such a "slope".

Allowing gay marriage is IMAO the *removal* of a needless artificial distinction. The very opposite of a slippery slope. Do you really want to place it on the same level as the difference between humankind and dogs or the idea of adult consent?

But the idea of "slippery slope" is the last refuge of the ideological failure -- meaning that someone can't oppose an idea as it stands by itself but has to use future hypotheticals of much more extreme and bizarre nature.

badanov> What is IMO truly reprehensible is that there exist so many children in orphanages, which gay or lesbian couples would love to adopt, except they are not allowed to.

And aren't you confusing sex with marriage, two wholly separate concepts? Marriage is at its core about mutual commitment, not about sex -- and you can check out the marital vows if you don't believe me.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-18 6:01:25 PM|| 2004-2-18 6:01:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 GK, the semicolon is priceless. I think I will send his honor of my last colonoscopy.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-18 7:54:29 PM|| 2004-2-18 7:54:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 meh. this news post was in bad taste

as for the folks who want to deny others the joy of marriage.. your heart is two sizes too small

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-2-18 9:27:34 PM|| 2004-2-18 9:27:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 And those who want to give gays the same rights based upon their bahavior as heterosexuals, you brain is two sizes too small.

Posted by badanov 2004-2-18 10:00:03 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-2-18 10:00:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Aris still thinks marriage is about love. Love is good in a marriage. Respect is good too. Back rubs, what have you. But marrige is about who is the father. Argue the point Aris. Don't just put it down. Who's your daddy. We know who popped you.

Bitches, bastards, studs, whores, punks, pricks, sluts.

Celebrate love/lust Aris. Oh happiness.

But get this Aris. There isn't a greater respect a man can give than to raise his wifes child and give that child his name. But you might have something greater.

And putting children with people living an adultress life style stinks. But I'm sure your good with it.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-19 1:06:35 AM|| 2004-2-19 1:06:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 "Aris still thinks marriage is about love."

Aris still thinks marriage is about mutual commitment, and once again you can check out the marital vows if you don't believe me.

"But marriage is about who is the father."

Once again: Your claim is unsupported by both law and tradition.

As for your insults I return them to you as they are -- you are ofcourse capable of nothing greater when you are so backed against a corner where the nakedness and unsupportability of your fundie beliefs is bared for all to see.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-19 1:53:10 AM|| 2004-2-19 1:53:10 AM|| Front Page Top

19:42 Dqem
21:09 Dqem
21:05 Dqem
09:44 Raptor
08:21 Jennie Taliaferro
02:07 Aris Katsaris
01:53 Aris Katsaris
01:06 Lucky
00:37 Lucky
00:07 Lucky
23:50 Lucky
23:02 Mike Sylwester
22:39 Mike Sylwester
22:15 Korora
22:00 badanov
21:52 Stephen
21:45 Alaska Paul
21:27 Dcreeper
21:24 Lone Ranger
21:18 Hyper
21:12 .com
20:58 .com
20:55 Frank G
20:46 .com