Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Madison » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:58 pm

knapplc wrote:
Madison wrote:Not sure you can handle me being honest by explaining my signature. Most people can't. But suffice it to say that I look forward to the coming blood.


knapplc wrote:Madison, I can handle any explanation about your "coming blood" that you're willing to give. I invite you to give a full explanation. The floor is yours.


Crap, missed that post, wasn't intentional. Sorry. :-/

I'll send you a PM. ;-D
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby The Artful Dodger » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:07 pm

Madison wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:I was going by your hypothetical example as civil unions sharing the equal rights as marriages, but still called "civil unions".

As it stands now, civil unions do not have all the rights as marriage. That's where the inequality lies because not only civil unions are not considered marriage right now, the rights coverage is not as comprehensive as marriage. Civil unions were originally created for a different purpose. If equal rights are extended to homosexual couples, then the tag "civil unions" is needless when it is marriage because the purpose of said civil unions is exactly the same as marriage.


Ok, teach me. What were civil unions originally created for? I (stupidly it seems) thought civil unions were created specifically for homo-sexual couples since those relationships did not qualify for marriage, based on the definition of marriage.

And you have opened my eyes as to how right now, at this moment, there is a big gap between marriage and civil union on the legal front. So I do feel making those relationships equal should be the first order of business by the government. And I thank you for that. ;-D


No worries. ;-D

Civil unions were created to give legal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples, the same kinds of rights as traditional married couples. There's a gap in rights between same-sex civil unions and traditional marriage for a few reasons. Not all states legalize and honor civil unions. In states that do legalize civil unions, there isn't a uniform policy of rights and responsibilities granted on homosexual couples between the states. A civil union in Oregon differs from one in Vermont, for example. The bigger problem is civil unions have limitations on their marriage rights, which would otherwise be granted to traditional married couples. As discussed, civil unions are not entitled to Social Security survivor rights, Medicare, child support, petitioning of a partner for citizenship, and so on, based on the nature of the relationship being different from that of traditional marriage. Hence, you have a separate but also unequal status between civil unions and marriage.

Madison wrote:To put a new spin on all of this though, would it still be considered "unequal" for the church to have an additional approval of some sorts beyond whatever the government calls relationships, and would there be a call to the government to "fix" that supposed "inequality"?

Because that's how I see it right now. Government = civil union, church = marriage. So if it becomes Government = marriage, church = Sexy Time (as someone suggested earlier :-b ), isn't there still a "problem" for those screaming that words make it "unequal"? If so, this "problem" will never be fixed, not matter what the government calls relationships.


I might need some further clarification on your question and so, here's how I view it:

Government = marriage. Legal rights are granted, married status is honored indiscriminately in the eyes of the law.

Church = marriage. Legal rights are granted, priest is a witness to the nuptials. In a religious context, this is a union of two becoming one body and soul, therefore as one new person in relationship to God. Church reserves the right to deny same-sex marriage from being administered by a priest and/or in a Church setting.

Like I said, if I married the girl I'm currently dating in a legal setting, the Church will still honor us as married. If my wife-to-be enrolled in our local parish's RCIA program to be converted to Catholicism, the priest won't act as if our marriage did not take place because it didn't happen in the Church, and therefore he honors and acknowledges us as married. Also, the same spiritual responsibilities still apply to us (i.e. do not commit adultery). Likewise, the community still view and acknowledge us as married, even if we didn't get married in a Church setting. There is no extra status on top of a legal marriage in a religious setting, because it is essentially the same marriage. Would the extra classification smack of unequal? Maybe not, but it can likely be perceived that way too.
Image
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21935
(Past Year: 672)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Neato Torpedo » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:11 pm

Madison wrote:
Neato Torpedo wrote:Joe wouldn't object to being called black, African, Christian, male, or homosexual. But many gay couples object to being called "civilly wed". It's an insult to them and writing it into the letter of the law elevates it to institutionalized homophobia. Granted, it's a small bit of homophobia, but there should be ZERO, ZILCH, NADA institutionalized homophobia, and pressing the issue makes it so much worse. It's like if you called your friend DeShawn a Negro and say "what? Negro is Spanish for black, and you're fine with being called black, right?" It doesn't matter if you "simply cannot understand" how it's an insult if you're not the target of it.

Besides, you're giving heterosexuals the right to call their partnership a civil union or a marriage, but you're only allowing homosexuals the right to call their partnership a civil union. And don't you think that marriage sounds happy and romantic (assuming you're not one of those Negative Nancys who equates the word marriage with prison), while "civil union" sounds cold, impersonal, and legalese? Following that, the terminology equates gay partnerships with cold, impersonal, and unromantic. It's like telling your wife, "hello, domestic partner, let us engage in intercourse" instead of "hey baby, let's make love". Ten bucks says she puts on sweatpants, a belt, and an iron bolt if you go with the former. :-D

Maybe if we called straight unions "heterosexual domestic partnerships" and gay unions "civil unions", people wouldn't have a problem with it. Would you be up for that?


Joe doesn't mind being called a homosexual, but "civilly wed" is an insult? :-? If one is offensive, both should be, or neither one should be. That's not even bringing the "too sensitive" argument into play, which is easily done with... how did you put it... something that sounds "cold, impersonal, and unromantic"?

Like I said, it's not your place to decide whether or not people should feel insulted by something. If I was black, I probably wouldn't be offended by the N-word. So does that mean that (in my current demelaninized state) I should say that it's no big deal, call either or both Percys the N-word, and expect it uncensored from network TV because black people are "too sensitive"?

Madison wrote:If "marriage" sounds happy and romantic, but the law should be cold and impersonal, then what is the problem with the government calling all relationships "civil unions"?

Sure, "hetero-sexual domestic partnerships" is fine by me. It is accurate.

It's odd that it's easier for you to ban the use of the term "marriage" than to redefine it. :-?
Image

Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done
Rocinante2: lmao

Play Brushback Baseball! (we need more people)
Neato Torpedo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerWeb Supporter
Posts: 8618
Joined: 4 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: we don't burn gasoline, we burn our dreams

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Madison » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:26 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:No worries. ;-D

Civil unions were created to give legal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples, the same kinds of rights as traditional married couples. There's a gap in rights between same-sex civil unions and traditional marriage for a few reasons. Not all states legalize and honor civil unions. In states that do legalize civil unions, there isn't a uniform policy of rights and responsibilities granted on homosexual couples between the states. A civil union in Oregon differs from one in Vermont, for example. The bigger problem is civil unions have limitations on their marriage rights, which would otherwise be granted to traditional married couples. As discussed, civil unions are not entitled to Social Security survivor rights, Medicare, child support, petitioning of a partner for citizenship, and so on, based on the nature of the relationship being different from that of traditional marriage. Hence, you have a separate but also unequal status between civil unions and marriage.


So civil unions were originally created for same-sex couples, ok, at least I had that part right. The question then is, why did the government do such a poor job of making civil unions equal to marriages on the legal front? That was a horrible job! The federal government needs to step up and fix that. Pronto! :-D

Madison wrote:I might need some further clarification on your question and so, here's how I view it:

Government = marriage. Legal rights are granted, married status is honored indiscriminately in the eyes of the law.

Church = marriage. Legal rights are granted, priest is a witness to the nuptials. In a religious context, this is a union of two becoming one body and soul, therefore as one new person in relationship to God. Church reserves the right to deny same-sex marriage from being administered by a priest and/or in a Church setting.

Like I said, if I married the girl I'm currently dating in a legal setting, the Church will still honor us as married. If my wife-to-be enrolled in our local parish's RCIA program to be converted to Catholicism, the priest won't act as if our marriage did not take place because it didn't happen in the Church, and therefore he honors and acknowledges us as married. Also, the same spiritual responsibilities still apply to us (i.e. do not commit adultery). Likewise, the community still view and acknowledge us as married, even if we didn't get married in a Church setting. There is no extra status on top of a legal marriage in a religious setting, because it is essentially the same marriage. Would the extra classification smack of unequal? Maybe not, but it can likely be perceived that way too.


The last sentence is all I really needed to know because it would not surprise me in the least if the church (churches actually) step up with an extra classification or designation for marriages should the government think they control religion instead of the church. Which means this won't end in our lifetimes. Blah.

Neato Torpedo wrote:Like I said, it's not your place to decide whether or not people should feel insulted by something. If I was black, I probably wouldn't be offended by the N-word. So does that mean that (in my current demelaninized state) I should say that it's no big deal, call either or both Percys the N-word, and expect it uncensored from network TV because black people are "too sensitive"?


Nope, not my personal decision as to what is offensive, but people need to be consistent about it, otherwise their claims don't really carry any weight.

"Neato Torpedo wrote:It's odd that it's easier for you to ban the use of the term "marriage" than to redefine it. :-?


Curious question, but why is it odd to ban a word rather than use it incorrectly? Don't we teach young children that if they don't know what a word means, they aren't to use it because it is either a "naughty" word or they will sound stupid using it incorrectly? The "using it incorrectly" part applies even as an adult. "There", "their", and "they're" is a perfect example. Three different words with very different meanings that we all learned as young children, yet how many adults show their intelligence (or lack thereof) when using those three words? So rather than use and promote the misuse of the word marriage, I'd rather not see it used at all.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby The Artful Dodger » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:36 pm

Madison wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:No worries. ;-D

Civil unions were created to give legal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples, the same kinds of rights as traditional married couples. There's a gap in rights between same-sex civil unions and traditional marriage for a few reasons. Not all states legalize and honor civil unions. In states that do legalize civil unions, there isn't a uniform policy of rights and responsibilities granted on homosexual couples between the states. A civil union in Oregon differs from one in Vermont, for example. The bigger problem is civil unions have limitations on their marriage rights, which would otherwise be granted to traditional married couples. As discussed, civil unions are not entitled to Social Security survivor rights, Medicare, child support, petitioning of a partner for citizenship, and so on, based on the nature of the relationship being different from that of traditional marriage. Hence, you have a separate but also unequal status between civil unions and marriage.


So civil unions were originally created for same-sex couples, ok, at least I had that part right. The question then is, why did the government do such a poor job of making civil unions equal to marriages on the legal front? That was a horrible job! The federal government needs to step up and fix that. Pronto! :-D


Remember the federal government itself doesn't honor civil unions, but rather it's up to the states to allow them. That's where the flaws are derived from. So, in the eyes of the federal government, they don't see a same-sex civil union as being in relation as a traditional marriage (in other words, no relationship established). The fact that a couple can file a joint tax return within the state they reside (if it honors civil unions) but must file individually at the federal level is just scratching the surface, as far as the rights missed out. Like I said, if homosexuals are granted equal marriage rights, then in government's eyes, it should consider them as legally married with the same rights of marriage extended onto them.

Madison wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:I might need some further clarification on your question and so, here's how I view it:

Government = marriage. Legal rights are granted, married status is honored indiscriminately in the eyes of the law.

Church = marriage. Legal rights are granted, priest is a witness to the nuptials. In a religious context, this is a union of two becoming one body and soul, therefore as one new person in relationship to God. Church reserves the right to deny same-sex marriage from being administered by a priest and/or in a Church setting.

Like I said, if I married the girl I'm currently dating in a legal setting, the Church will still honor us as married. If my wife-to-be enrolled in our local parish's RCIA program to be converted to Catholicism, the priest won't act as if our marriage did not take place because it didn't happen in the Church, and therefore he honors and acknowledges us as married. Also, the same spiritual responsibilities still apply to us (i.e. do not commit adultery). Likewise, the community still view and acknowledge us as married, even if we didn't get married in a Church setting. There is no extra status on top of a legal marriage in a religious setting, because it is essentially the same marriage. Would the extra classification smack of unequal? Maybe not, but it can likely be perceived that way too.


The last sentence is all I really needed to know because it would not surprise me in the least if the church (churches actually) step up with an extra classification or designation for marriages should the government think they control religion instead of the church. Which means this won't end in our lifetimes. Blah.


An extra classification on the church's part would equally be just as pointless as the government classifying "civil unions" and marriage, all things being equal. The Catholic Church, in particular, won't budge in their insistence that marriage is only between a man and a woman, which sort of makes any classification a moot point really.
Image
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21935
(Past Year: 672)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Art Vandelay » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:40 pm

Madison wrote:And since you blew what I said way out of proportion on the communication front, I thought maybe you'd appreciate a different answer that also applied.

What did I blow out of proportion? Here are a handful of quotes from a quick review of the first 12 or so pages of this thread:
We use language to describe things, and when something is different (be it for content, genetics, color, weight, shape, particles, etc), we create new words to describe them. If we're going to shrink the language by cramming stuff where it doesn't fit, we all might as well go back to just grunting instead of speaking.


we don't just change definitions of words all willy-nilly, contrary to what some believe. That's what all this fuss is about, the changing of a definition.


Like I said earlier, if we're going to destroy the meaning of words by including things that don't fit, we all might as well go back to grunting.


Makes the definition of words meaningless. That's kind of important for communicating.


Can of worms and where does it end is the answer to your question posed to me. If we are going to change the definition of marriage to include the opposite, you do realize the precedent that sets for just changing definitions and our language, right?


I have explained. If we change the definitions of words at every little whim, it will become habit or easy to do, and eventually communication won't be possible.

I mean it is bad enough that so many people out there don't understand that their, they're, and their are three completely different words with completely different meanings, like two, too, and to, but what is the benefit of increasing the confusion by changing definitions of more words? It will only bring additional communication problems and ultimately language and communication would become a complete failure.

If you did not mean to imply that you think this could lead to a breakdown of communication, you certainly took an odd path in making your point, whatever else it was.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Neato Torpedo » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:43 pm

Madison wrote:
Neato Torpedo wrote:Like I said, it's not your place to decide whether or not people should feel insulted by something. If I was black, I probably wouldn't be offended by the N-word. So does that mean that (in my current demelaninized state) I should say that it's no big deal, call either or both Percys the N-word, and expect it uncensored from network TV because black people are "too sensitive"?


Nope, not my personal decision as to what is offensive, but people need to be consistent about it, otherwise their claims don't really carry any weight.

So following that, the terms "African-American" and "Negro" describe black people, so in order to be consistent, they must be offended by both or neither?

Also, a lot of the offense taken derives from the fact that it's written in law. I don't think anyone would really care if the law called it a marriage and you called it a civil union; it's that it's institutionalized that's the big problem.

Madison wrote:
"Neato Torpedo wrote:It's odd that it's easier for you to ban the use of the term "marriage" than to redefine it. :-?


Curious question, but why is it odd to ban a word rather than use it incorrectly? Don't we teach young children that if they don't know what a word means, they aren't to use it because it is either a "naughty" word or they will sound stupid using it incorrectly? The "using it incorrectly" part applies even as an adult. "There", "their", and "they're" is a perfect example. Three different words with very different meanings that we all learned as young children, yet how many adults show their intelligence (or lack thereof) when using those three words? So rather than use and promote the misuse of the word marriage, I'd rather not see it used at all.

It's not a given that they're misusing it. Remember the change in definition of the word computer? Once the occupation of computer was phased out, the word's definition changed to the machine we're using right now. We didn't rid the language of the word "computer" and call these machines a "flaybooz" instead.
Image

Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done
Rocinante2: lmao

Play Brushback Baseball! (we need more people)
Neato Torpedo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerWeb Supporter
Posts: 8618
Joined: 4 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: we don't burn gasoline, we burn our dreams

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Madison » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:58 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:Remember the federal government itself doesn't honor civil unions, but rather it's up to the states to allow them. That's where the flaws are derived from. So, in the eyes of the federal government, they don't see a same-sex civil union as being in relation as a traditional marriage (in other words, no relationship established). The fact that a couple can file a joint tax return within the state they reside (if it honors civil unions) but must file individually at the federal level is just scratching the surface, as far as the rights missed out. Like I said, if homosexuals are granted equal marriage rights, then in government's eyes, it should consider them as legally married with the same rights of marriage extended onto them.


Right, and I said the federal government needs to get involved and fix it. I thought they had more hands on with the creating of civil unions, but it seems I was wrong there as well. So it is certainly time for the federal government to fix that problem and make them equal. ;-D

The Artful Dodger wrote:An extra classification on the church's part would equally be just as pointless as the government classifying "civil unions" and marriage, all things being equal. The Catholic Church, in particular, won't budge in their insistence that marriage is only between a man and a woman, which sort of makes any classification a moot point really.


Shame I'm not Catholic, but it is a perfect example of "who" is responsible for "marriage". I believe it to be the church, you believe it to be the government. If we agreed on who controlled what marriage is, we might agree on the entire topic. ;-)

Art Vandelay wrote:If you did not mean to imply that you think this could lead to a breakdown of communication, you certainly took an odd path in making your point, whatever else it was.


There's a big difference in contributing to a possible future problem and being the one big thing that actually caused it. I've said changing definitions can lead to future communication problems and you jumped all the way to that one word causing no one to be able to communicate. Such a huge leap the two things aren't even in the same ocean, but to be fair, you were not the only one who did it.

Another way to explain it, if you see one ant bed in your yard and you do nothing about it, more and more ant beds will pop up, and if you still do nothing about it, eventually you won't be able to walk through your yard without being bitten by an ant. No difference here. I'm not saying this is the first ant bed, but it is one of a growing number of ant beds and it needs to be stopped (or killed for the analogy, along with the other ant beds).
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby The Artful Dodger » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:07 pm

Madison wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:An extra classification on the church's part would equally be just as pointless as the government classifying "civil unions" and marriage, all things being equal. The Catholic Church, in particular, won't budge in their insistence that marriage is only between a man and a woman, which sort of makes any classification a moot point really.


Shame I'm not Catholic, but it is a perfect example of "who" is responsible for "marriage". I believe it to be the church, you believe it to be the government. If we agreed on who controlled what marriage is, we might agree on the entire topic. ;-)


You can always convert. :-b

I view marriage as a universal institution first and foremost. You can get married in a church, in a synagogue, in a mosque, in a Hindu temple, and it's still the same relationship of marriage. Problem is, there will be some differences on interpreting marriage between the religions, some of which is cultural. This is why governments, not just here or but across the world, have power to authorize and honor the agreement of a union. It doesn't matter if in the US, Canada, Europe, or wherever, that union is still universally honored and it carries portability across nations and communities. In the US, it's a constitutional right to get married in a non-religious setting if for whatever reason you cannot marry in a religious setting. So, yes, I see marriage as a universal institution that is governed and honored by law, while religions are free to keep to their traditions of matrimony.
Image
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21935
(Past Year: 672)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Madison » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:24 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:You can always convert. :-b

I view marriage as a universal institution first and foremost. You can get married in a church, in a synagogue, in a mosque, in a Hindu temple, and it's still the same relationship of marriage. Problem is, there will be some differences on interpreting marriage between the religions, some of which is cultural. This is why governments, not just here or but across the world, have power to authorize and honor the agreement of a union. It doesn't matter if in the US, Canada, Europe, or wherever, that union is still universally honored and it carries portability across nations and communities. In the US, it's a constitutional right to get married in a non-religious setting if for whatever reason you cannot marry in a religious setting. So, yes, I see marriage as a universal institution that is governed and honored by law, while religions are free to keep to their traditions of matrimony.


Nah, no converting for me. I couldn't hack being a Catholic anyway, they'd kick me out I'm sure. !+)

Ok, fun now. O:-)

How can the United States government control something that's universal across the globe? What "right" does the United States have to tell all religions and all countries what marriage is or that they are "wrong" as to what marriage is? Who will force other countries to comply with the United State's definition of marriage?

The United States government can only control the unions in this country, and as such, should leave "marriage" to the bodies that control it around the world (religion).
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 29
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Minnesota at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Philadelphia at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Boston at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Miami at Atlanta
(7:35 pm)
Cleveland at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Texas at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Chi Cubs at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Colorado at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Oakland at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
LA Dodgers at San Diego
(10:10 pm)
Washington at Seattle
(10:10 pm)
Milwaukee at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact