Secrets of the City

Okay, yoshi. You yapped about the need civil union legislation back in my Feb 26 smoking thread, so were are ya now?

BTW, this bill sounds fine with Just Plain Bob.

Damn I thought for sure they were just going to make women chattel again.

And then it got vetoed.

I support the idea, but they will need to prove to me that this is real legislation, rather than an inversion of Kerstenesque grandstanding over things that are not representative of white/(semi-)wealthy/Christian/outer-ring suburban folk (pick two or more).

Let’s let Pawlenty say he’ll veto it before we congratulate the DFL on their clever strategy to make him look homophobic.

In an apparent attempt to soften some opposition, the new bill explicitly states that nothing in it “mean[s] the state of Minnesota condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle,” or allows it to be promoted as such in the state’s public schools.

Silly. Apparently, I’m slow to the gate as I didn’t know that being gay or bi was like living in Uptown or wearing the latest hipster wear.

And I thought we were only promoting celibacy and weren’t discussing sex, at all, in schools.

I’m all for the bill, but it’d be nice to see a DFL budget proposal before that start stumping for legislation that will run smack dab into a gubernatorial veto.

To make him look homophobic or show that he is?

I’m all for the bill, but it’d be nice to see a DFL budget proposal before that start stumping for legislation that will run smack dab into a gubernatorial veto.

Which their budget will as well, so six of one, half-dozen of another really.

Can anyone say distraction, both parties are inept short sighted finacial idiots. Let’s bait and switch one issue for another. No wonder the state is a finacial basket case. why don’t we remove the state government from the whole process. Marrage is a dead institution that is propigated by righwing nut bags who think that breeding is the end all be all of our existance. The left just plays right into their hands on this issue. Now we can listen to every pastor talk about how important marrage is to our civilaization while said society crumbles around us.

Oh, swandog. It’s good to see that you’re still around. My heart is filled with joy.

I don’t think the marriage is dead just yet. And same-sex unions are being talked about whether or not the wording is changed.

Are you saying that the issue of same-sex marriage made the state a “financial basket case”?

Ah, yes, I forgot: People can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

If marriage is “all about protecting the children,” maybe it’s time someone propose that any marriage that doesn’t result in the birth of a child within, say, 3 years, has to be nullified.

Are you saying that the issue of same-sex marriage made the state a “financial basket case”?

No it is a distraction to larger problems facing the state.  It is all about money in the end.  I am for anyone choosing to live, exist and be with the person or persons of their choice but the fact that the government has a say on social choices between two adults is a means of controlling said individuals.  In the end married individuals who have children are given unfair advantages through the tax code.  If we eliminated the marrage advantage and taxed people without the sheild of marrage we would have a more equitable tax code and increase revanue.  Why should someone that is gay pay a greater share of the tax burden than someone who breeds out four kids and gets to write them off on their taxes at the end of the year.  Why do we provide a deduction on the tax code for a child when that child is actually a greater burden on the over all system.  Not to mention their carbon foot print.  I propose that we elliminate any kind of govenmental control or say of the union of two consenting adults.  Use contract law to create civil unions.  For god sake 50% of marragies fail why would continue to bother with such an institution.

If marriage is “all about protecting the children,” maybe it’s time someone propose that any marriage that doesn’t result in the birth of a child within, say, 3 years, has to be nullified.

It would benifit many people on their taxes i.e. the marrage penalty

If marriage is “all about protecting the children,” maybe it’s time someone propose that any marriage that doesn’t result in the birth of a child within, say, 3 years, has to be nullified.

Dang. cjc and I would have six months to produce a kid, that would be difficult.

But you are right. A constant arguement is that men and women can only be together because they are the only ones that God allows to have kids.  This makes any childless couple, of any persuasion, invalid in these people’s eyes.  And what about all the gay couples who do have kids?

Swandog: in your to cat you say:

If we eliminated the marrage advantage and taxed people without the sheild of marrage we would have a more equitable tax code and increase revanue.

But in your response to me you say:

It would benifit many people on their taxes i.e. the marrage penalty

Which is it? marriage penalty or advantage. Those are pretty exclusive of each other.

And what about all the gay couples who do have kids?

Obviously, in order to save them, those kids would have to be removed from that home, and placed in an orphanage.

Maybe there should be a penalty for getting married and then a reimbursement for having kids?? No? Dang.

Maybe if I was adopted by teh gays instead of teh Irish, I would dress better, have a fabulously decorated home instead of knowing how to sing badly while drinking right up until I want to hurl on my shoes.

Of course. But only if every employee has a intensive background check to make sure they are not gay.

If marriage, by law, would be only for the purpose of procreation, how long will it be before the wingnut social engineers outlaw all sex except for the purpose of procreation … even when a couple is married?

Marriage is a property contract. That’s all it is, as far as the State is concerned. A state doesn’t even require a couple be married in a church or by a priest in order to be legally married.

the gays getting married? now i’ve heard EVERYTHING!

Stupid screen names? Now I’ve seen everything. Everything!

@kc Wanda Sykes had a hilarious bit about how marriage is like a business and she and her husband didn’t produce a product, so they went out of business. Then, I believe, she remarried a woman before prop 8 went into effect. Here’s hoping they don’t go out of business!

The link to Mr. North on University’s blog is a waste of time. You have been warned.

Which is it? marriage penalty or advantage. Those are pretty exclusive of each other.

Poor wording on my part. The key to the tax advantage is the presence of kids. Those that do not have kids pay more. I argue that marrage is to benifit those that procreate kids while the rest of us pay a penalty because we do not have kids. Those that are married without kids pay a higher tax bill than those with kids on a marginal scale. Overall the marrage to most people creates an advatage compared to anyone that does not have children.

And what about all the gay couples who do have kids? Obviously, in order to save them, those kids would have to be removed from that home, and placed in an orphanage.

No I would not take anyones kids awayfrom them (excluding abuse or neglect) I don’t want to pay for them and obviosely would not want to take them away from people they love.