I've learned it's best not to have any wishes. Just plans.

Then again, wishes do materialize when we least expect them too. It's like stopping trying hard to smile. Letting it go. Relaxing. Then the smile comes.

Dr. Paul isn't against gay marriage... I don't know where you got that, but during the primaries, he A) Called it a non-issue that keeps one set of people busy arguing against another and B) he stated that all Americans deserve the same rights ensured to them by the Constitution. He said that Marriage has historically been a Religious issue and it should stay that way, not giving Government one more way to encroach into our lives. All it would take then, under Dr. Pauls stance, is to find the religion that would marry 2 gay folks. A nonDemoninational or Wiccan/Pagan ordained Minister would do it for sure. Under the fighting each other system that is in place now, Gay folks are at the whims of Mob Rule, which is what "Democracy" is. Too bad we're supposed to be a Democratic Republic, meaning our democratically elected officials are supposed to protect ALL of the rights of the Citizens in their regions.

As for abortion, do you ProChoice people really feel like the one size fits all of Roe V. Wade is the answer? I don't and you all should realize just how close you folks were to losing that under Bush, how many more appointees to the SCOTUS did Bush need for the Abortion clinics to get the Homeland security treatment?
The issue with Abortion is that it's a complicated issue, with most complicated issues it really needs to be a smaller area solution. If states don't want to pass it, take it to the county level, but when one group gets to force their choice, their morals on another group, none of us are free.

"It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades."

Dr.Ron Paul
Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction, March 2, 2004

Sorry War, we probably just won't agree on this one.

I would rather not have gay marriage if I have to play musical states to get it.

There are so few churches that will marry gays and frankly I don't want to have to move to those states.

I don't see those who can marry having any such restrictions so why should I have to take second best from their point of view. Thanks but no thanks.

Same goes for abortion rights only in certain states. No musical states, where you take your life in your hands trying to get to one fast enough.

It's no compromise to me.

My compromise on gay marriage, is add gays to state court marriages in all states, with all the same rights as straights. As long as it's still legal marriage, works for me.

Then the churches can do what they want. I don't want to marry in a church that has so little respect for me in the first place, so I would never marry in a church, though i certainly understand it from the point of view of Christian gays...

If some churches want to marry gays anyway, fine, but there would never be enough to make it worth leaving your home state for then not have it recognized were I do live.

But the word marriage is a big hang up for people too, they don't want to share that with anyone that doesn't fit their view of the world.

The problem is that people seek a state approval to love each other.

As long as state issues such a license, yes, I agree, it should be given to whoever applies. Gays, straights, man marrying cats, etc. (no offense intended).

But, this is the root of the problem. State shall have no business deciding things like this.

Ideally, if you want to marry, do a contract with that person, and there you go. However, currently, since state does discriminate (not giving a tax cut to man/cat couple), there is a point to seek equality.

Therein lies the problem. The founders meant for issues like this to be decided at states level or even more local.
One size fits all solutions do not work, it leaves a portion of the population out in the cold wondering where their representation is at and in the end the minority group finds itself at the whims of the majority, no matter how right or wrong the situation is.

Where I sit, I view Gay people as my fellow citizens, I am continually bothered by the fact that one group is using their religious preferences to prompt their political leaders to restrict and ban a segment of our population from enjoying Liberty and Freedom.
Abortion I view as something that should be a last resort, in the case of Rape, Incest or if the mother is in danger. Other than that, I think that abortion is just messed up. I've seen both sides of the issue, I've seen the raped woman, who in my view deserves that option to terminate, but I've also seen the woman who says, "Oops, forgot to use a condom, off to Tillers clinic."

Once again, just a complicated issue.

States actually already get to choose their Marriage rights, just look at the way it happens in Vegas. To those who think that Marriage is in some kind of danger, if Gays get the same treatment, I have to tell you: Gay marriage doesn't put the Institution of Marriage in danger. A 50% divorce rate puts the institution of marriage in danger.

That's one of my biggest concerns nowadays. Ever since the civil war people are so focused on a centralized power. As you said our forefathers were intended most of the power to reside at the state level for the simple fact that people in California do not know what's best for the people in Maine.

On the whole gay marriage thing, my personal belief is that the state should not be allowed to control what the church does, and the church should not be able to dictate what the state does. The state's job is merely to acknowledge civil unions, for anybody. This gives taxbreaks for unionized couples, and other benefits. Honestly i always felt it was the church's call on who to marry as marriage is a religious union. Just my opinion....

Ok Drive, War and Nogames, I am trying very hard to understand what you each are saying with out a complete understanding of how both state and fed works. As I said before we each as human have a limited view of life, and I am still getting an education.

So nogames, you say that the state should not decide, and war says the feds should give it back to the states, which seems like a cop out to me or at least a way to get it out of their hands. So now I am completely confused.

Look I have lived 58 years with out the same rights as everyone else, I can die with out them as well. It's again, not like I am expecting anything really considering the way things are, so just for discussion sake:

I would like to for once understand this whole thing. It appears to me that the states and the feds are just passing us back and forth like a hot potato, not one wanting to address this for political reasons more than what is right and wrong.

Drive, I don't understand this civil union thing because their seems to be several different versions of that too. I hear people say they married in court. Is that civil union and people are just describing it as marriage wrongfully? It seems to me that if one issues a marriage license then that is what it is, marriage, no?

So the word marriage should be considered the same whether married in a church or court?

I don't see why this has to be such a complicated matter, just ad gays to the court marriage? What am I not getting? Why would that be a problem.

The church can continue to discriminate by body parts as they have. Ok just a tinge of sarcasm there, but hey I'm entitled considering I have to endure some of the ugliest things said of a human being.. lol

So I guess I am saying that if neither the feds or the states want to decide this, then who does?

And Nogames, please with the man and cat thing, you aren't helping.. though I do see the humor in it, it just gives the opposition more fire power. Ok ok, it might not even matter considering anyone that against it anyway will never be convinced we don't screw our pets.....

Hell I can't even convince most people that I am a lesbian and celibate..... now I have to be sure and mention that I am not into domestic pets?

One can't win.. lmao

War, believe it or not I am with you on abortion, I think abortion for the sake of abortion is awful, my argument is that I don't like anyone dictating to me decisions about my own body. I can not possibly know why another woman might choose abortion and I shouldn't be telling her what to do. That is up to her ultimately and her doctor and family. To me letting states decide this particular issue just gives each state the right to make it just as difficult for a woman by making it even harder to find services.

This has been a good discussion despite the fact that I am still not clear on all points yet, and fail to see why this has to be so difficult.

First of all a toast to you for your response as it is nonthreatening in every way. I have to admit my views are quite limited and i have recently adopted a different set of political views. Well, it's more of a philosophy than a view,but that is besides the point.

My civil union approach basically says that everyone has an equal opportunity from the state to be legally wed. Doesn't matter if you are f/m, f/f, m/m, you get your permission from the state. The church has a right not to wed you though, if it is against their beliefs.

There is some conflict in my mind whether the states should be calling marriages, marriages simply because i see it as a bit of a religious term. But if they call it a "union" then everyone that gets married regardless of sex is given that same title. But i don't have a full bodied opinion on that aspect...

Side note:

As mentioned earlier i believe we need to get into the mindset that the states should be making more decisions. People have more control over local government. Also, if we take power away from a centralized source it is harder to corrupt and easier to fight corruption. As our Thomas Jefferson once said;

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence".

My major point is:

If you wish to ask for permissions, be ready to have some of them denied. Otherwise, what does it even mean, to ask for permission that is always guaranteed?

Why should I? Does the state owns me? Am I a slave?

I don't need a permission.

But the state will rule as long as people come in as sheeps to ask it for permission for something they could do anyway.

Well you are at least honest about your limitations, I find that very refreshing.

I like your approach, but I don't know that I agree on the naming part yet....

Having been around for what seems like centuries now.. grin.. I never thought of marriage as a church thing. I always thought many who do not want to marry in a church simply married in court. So if you take the word married away from them, then you get them mad at us too.. LOL Ack, just what I need.

The church frankly has been so hostile toward gays that I do find it difficult to be sympathetic to their point of view, but I will be respectful and say ok, if they don't want to marry us, fine. Some will and that's ok too, but at least I have a choice of some sort. I might not be able to marry in a church if one is not in my state that allows it. But I at least have the state.

That works for me and I think it would work for lots of gays. That being said, personally I don't want to marry my partner until it's seen with more respect and I don't see that happening in my life time, but for those young people that do want it despite what others think, I want that for them.

Now for the state making more decisions. Believe me you don't live in mine if you think that are less corrupt.. grin! And or at least in my country. Who said they lost 3 million dollars and now want us to make up for it. People in our local local don't have a clue what they are doing and the last thing they want you to do is show up for a meeting and actually say anything. I don't know that Thomas Jefferson could have imagined how far we have come from his time, and how different things are.

I could never have imagined we would be talking about this issue seriously even 20 years ago.

So I don't know that our past always answers our current times... but I could be wrong since I am still learning. I really really appreciate the way you handled your response to me as well, Drivin. It really is refreshing. lol

Could you put that another way for me, I am not quite understanding what you are saying, Nogames.

I am wondering what permissions would be denied? After all, all we want is what straights have already, nothing more. Just the right to have marriage as straights do, with the same benefits they do.

I could give up the right to marry in church but that wouldn't mean that other gays don't have a good reason for wanting that, that I have no thought of because I just don't care about that part.

I don't get that part about sheep and slave and does the state own me, so could you rephrase that so I get what you are saying? Sorry for the denseness I just want to be clear.

I'll try...

You are going to a state office. Why?

You are begging the state to permit you to live with another person who you love.

Why are you asking for permission. The state is not your master.

On the other hand, if you still prefer to ask the state for a permission, then it should be up to the state, to give it to you or not, right? I mean that is the point. You are the servant, the state is the master. The state may permit or it may not. If it was always permitting, then what is the point of asking?

Currently, if you are "domestic partners", then you can not see each other in the hospital, and do not get the income tax discount?

I say, we just need to make sure no one gets a discount or everyone does.

Instead of begging for a permission, we need to make sure we will gain nothing by getting it.

As for men and cat marriage...

I am amazed, why is everybody takes everything personally?

It simply means that the state has no more authority in granting a marriage to man and a woman, than to man and a cat.

What does this mean?

It means that the state does not have an authority to grant permissions.

First of all you won't catch me Begging for anything. I don't beg, it's either offered from the heart or not, if not then I still will not beg for what others take for granted. It's up to other gays if they see the value in begging for something others never had to beg for.

Think about that for a sec, Nogames. If you were in my place would you beg for permission. You don't strike me as the kinda guy that would beg for anything, unless maybe it was for your life, and even then I might not beg.

I know that demanding is too strong a word here when you consider that some folks vehemently dislike us and would do just about anything to prevent us from ever having the same rights as straights, but why, as citizens and tax payers would we not demand or at the very least demand the same rights as others as a consenting couple to marry?

I guess what I am saying is if there is a way to remotely put yourself in my shoes, would demanding be such a harsh word if it weren't for the fact that I am gay?

I don't know what a domestic partner is, so obviously I am not one.. lol

There is a whole lot more to legal marriage benefits than I think you might know about, respectfully. I was told by a marriage lawyer if that is what you call them, that few realize what is involved, it's not just visitation or discounts.

Didn't get that last thing about making sure we will gain nothing by getting it?

Never mind. It feels like we speak different language.

Not torturing you anymore.


peace

Dang you made me type all that for nothing?

I never thought you were torturing me though, but your right, I do tend not to always understand how you present things, that is why I asked for clarification so I don't respond badly from misunderstanding. Peace to you too, Nogames.

You obviously don't know the things people say to gays, Nogames, so I can forgive you for not knowing, and in this case you may not have meant anything by that, but it's hard not to notice those kind of remarks because there very close to the horrible things people do say daily to gays. Giving people the idea that gays are into cats is not responsible, though you may not have thought about it like that, others do.

I don't really get the feeling from you that you would deliberately be that insensitive, but I just wanted to respond to why people might be so sensitive. And I admit that I am to that.

If I am touchy than please forgive me. I could be just a woman thing... lol

No, I didn't mean to be insensitive.

I literally am struggling to find a better example to show, why in the hell anyone ASKS the state for permissions.
Today, this might be gays. Tomorrow, this might be someone else who we forgot.

But as long as we LET the state decide, someone will be denied.

So, why put up with it?

'

so who decides ultimately, Nogames? Does any part of the government local or fed have any say so, and if they don't who does? The people? we both know by being here at least that people aren't always if ever fair to certain groups, right? So who decides or do we as a group quit?

Forgive me if I am still a bit confused, sooner or later will will get eachothers way of speaking down pat.. lol

boo

I think people should simply be with whoever they want to be. The government should not be in the business of giving you a permission to be gay couple or not, to abort or not.

By our constitution, the government is here only to make sure that nobody as much as lays a finger on you, even if they don't like that you're gay.

To clarify, we should not fight to get the permission, but to deny them (the government) to even be in position to allow or to disallow.

This way, if there is a minority group that we haven't thought of yet, they would not need to continue the same fight tomorrow.