gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.
I don't you thought that through. Try again.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- CA State Senator DUI (with bonus gay nightclub hijinks)
CA State Senator DUI (with bonus gay nightclub hijinks)Follow
Depends largely on the DC marriage laws. As I recall, in Mass. you had to be a resident for a while before you could apply for a marriage license. If the DC laws are looser, it could draw in a considerable number of people from the region.
I don't you thought that through. Try again.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
"I believe that the majority of people believe that right now." --gbaji
Wrong. Empirically and emphatically wrong. Take any measure of the population of the United States and the majority will consistently and convincingly state that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. No amount of massaging, contorting, or twisting the data can jiu jitsu the plain and simple truth that the majority of US citizens want the traditional definition of marriage to stand.
Rail against that all you want. Labor intensively to change those attitudes and beliefs, but right now gbaji's statement is utterly without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Totem
Wrong. Empirically and emphatically wrong. Take any measure of the population of the United States and the majority will consistently and convincingly state that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. No amount of massaging, contorting, or twisting the data can jiu jitsu the plain and simple truth that the majority of US citizens want the traditional definition of marriage to stand.
Rail against that all you want. Labor intensively to change those attitudes and beliefs, but right now gbaji's statement is utterly without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Totem
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And to be perfectly fair, you aren't factoring in couples that will head to DC in order to get married, because they can't in (say) Virginia.
Depends largely on the DC marriage laws. As I recall, in Mass. you had to be a resident for a while before you could apply for a marriage license. If the DC laws are looser, it could draw in a considerable number of people from the region.
No residency requirement. Virginians and West Virginians may marry, but their marriages are not recognized in their states. Maryland does not perform gay marriages, but does recognize their validity when performed outside the state.
I imagine this will be a huge $ boon for DC, as many couples will probably wish to move and the additional licenses will help as well, at least in the short run.
from dccourts.gov wrote:
Marriage License Information
The minimum age for marriage in the District of Columbia is 18 years or 16 years with the consent of a parent or guardian. Proof of age for the applicant's must be shown and may be demonstrated by driver's licenses, birth certificates, passports, or similar official documents. The Marriage License Application fee is $35.00 (this fee will be waived if the applicants’ original Domestic Partnership Certificate registered under D.C. Code §32-702 is presented at the time of application). The Certificate of Marriage fee is $10.00. All fees must be paid by cash or money order (made out to Clerk, D.C. Superior Court) for the license to be issued.
The Marriage License Application must include social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth for both parties as well as previous marriage information, that is, the city, state, country of each marriage and the ending status of each, such as, by divorce or death. Home and work telephone numbers for both parties are also requested.
Religious celebrants and judges other than those of the D.C. Courts must be authorized by the Court and registered by the Marriage Bureau in order to perform legal marriages in the District of Columbia. The full name of the intended celebrant must be given at the time of the application for verification and placement on the license. Otherwise, a request for a Civil Wedding may be made and a clerk will attempt to schedule the marriage ceremony with a court official on or near the date you request, but not sooner than ten business days after your license becomes valid.
By law, three full days must pass between the day of application to the day that the license can be issued. The fee payment receipt is required to pick up the license. Marriage licenses are not issued by mail.
The minimum age for marriage in the District of Columbia is 18 years or 16 years with the consent of a parent or guardian. Proof of age for the applicant's must be shown and may be demonstrated by driver's licenses, birth certificates, passports, or similar official documents. The Marriage License Application fee is $35.00 (this fee will be waived if the applicants’ original Domestic Partnership Certificate registered under D.C. Code §32-702 is presented at the time of application). The Certificate of Marriage fee is $10.00. All fees must be paid by cash or money order (made out to Clerk, D.C. Superior Court) for the license to be issued.
The Marriage License Application must include social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth for both parties as well as previous marriage information, that is, the city, state, country of each marriage and the ending status of each, such as, by divorce or death. Home and work telephone numbers for both parties are also requested.
Religious celebrants and judges other than those of the D.C. Courts must be authorized by the Court and registered by the Marriage Bureau in order to perform legal marriages in the District of Columbia. The full name of the intended celebrant must be given at the time of the application for verification and placement on the license. Otherwise, a request for a Civil Wedding may be made and a clerk will attempt to schedule the marriage ceremony with a court official on or near the date you request, but not sooner than ten business days after your license becomes valid.
By law, three full days must pass between the day of application to the day that the license can be issued. The fee payment receipt is required to pick up the license. Marriage licenses are not issued by mail.
Link to a bilingual application for a marriage license.
Some useful factoids and a FAQ from DC.org's glbt pride page (so proud).
And so there ya go. At the very least, tack the part of the population of Maryland onto that DC population number since Marylanders have reason to go to DC and wed knowing it'll be acknowledged back at home. You also have those who'll go to get married knowing that their own states may not support it yet but hopeful that they will in the future and still wanting it done today.
For that matter, I assume the "economic impact" of Washington DC is that of the entire metro area since DC isn't very large and there's nothing stopping you from having your reception in Virginia/Maryland. And the reception is where the real money is spent.
For that matter, I assume the "economic impact" of Washington DC is that of the entire metro area since DC isn't very large and there's nothing stopping you from having your reception in Virginia/Maryland. And the reception is where the real money is spent.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Seriously. We're taking something really really simple (Let's reduce the number of poor children in society by encouraging the people who produce those children to marry), into something so broad and so complex that it ceases to have any value or meaning. The farther we go down that path, the more ludicrous the entire thing becomes.
Another way of reduing the number of poor children (which includes those in the foster care system) in society is by encouraging people to get married and adopt when they can't have kids.
gbaji wrote:
The problem is about whether one defines "marriage" in a way which absolutely requires that the government provide you with "marriage benefits". If you believe that the absence of government benefits equals a denial of the right to marry, you will arrive at the false conclusion that gay people are being denied their rights, and further that this derives from a broad misunderstanding about the "okness" of gay couples and marriages.
Why wouldn't you couple the ceremony with the marriage benefits? It is part and parcel to what a marriage is. I think your problem is that you're only thinking of the tax issues, and not the slew of other benefits that go along with a marriage license. Like the right to visit a loved on in the hospital. Or inheritance rights.
I realize this is by way of being a derail at this point, but apparently Ashburn's constituents are saying that he did vote the way they wanted him to vote, and that they probably wouldn't have elected him had they known he was gay.
Which really says a lot about the penetration into the public discourse of the fear of the "gay agenda".
Which really says a lot about the penetration into the public discourse of the fear of the "gay agenda".
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Which really says a lot about the penetration into the public discourse of the fear of the "gay agenda".
This is pretty much the entire idea. Certain groups of people, who will remain nameless, still have this irrational fear of people who are homosexual. It stemmed back from the idea that being gay was an illness that can spread from one person to the next. The only thing that was contagious was the raw stupidity. These certain groups of people still have that mindset and will try their damnedest to make sure that homosexuals are not on equal ground as they are and will try their hardest to treat them as inferiors. It is sad really, I mean the only difference between them is sexual preference (and one has a irrational fear of the other, but that goes without saying really).
I am starting to wonder if Gbaji in all his mindless banter is actually crying out for attention. Trying to tell us "Yes! I would rather be married to another man than a woman. All this arguing over same sex marriage is a cover towards my true feelings. Roy Ashburn, your my hero. If only I had the courage to admit my true feelings instead of hiding them from the world."
Allegory wrote:
What I mean is that neither of your responses before was worded as what will actually happen.
Yes. I understand that. Do you understand that I don't know what will happen? Maybe you're unaware of this, but I provided you with more information (and more useful information) than you asked for. I suppose I could have just blindly stated a prediction, but that would have as much value as the pixels you're reading it on. Instead, I provided you with a pair of possibilities, with an explanation of what events might cause those possibilities to come to be.
If that's not satisfying for you, then I guess you'll just have to be unsatisfied.
Quote:
It is not my intention to play a semantics game.
Yet... That's what you're doing. For no really useful reason.
Quote:
But a literal interpretation of what you had said did not answer my question. You had said what you want to happen, you had said what hypothetically might happen, but you had not said what you think will happen. Do you understand my previous confusion and objection then?
What you asked for was a dumb thing to ask for. To follow your rain analogy. If someone asks if you think it will rain, which is more useful: Someone simply saying "Yes. I think it will rain". Or someone saying "Well. If the temperature and wind direction stay the same, it will rain. But if we're lucky, and that high pressure zone moves south, and we'll have clear skies".
One of those answers is useful. The other is worthless. Excuse me for automatically translating your question into one that served a purpose. I suppose I could be literal, but that would just be silly... ;)
Quote:
This is fairly close to what I want. I don't want to frustrate you too much, but I am going to have to ask for some clarification.
Are you saying that the small percentage of people who you believe understand the difference between marriage and marriage benefits will fail to convince the majority or will they succeed (in the context of creating legislation)? It seems like you think they will fail, which will lead to some further legislative gains by the majority who believe marriage and marriage benefits must be tied, and that this will lead to other issues.
Are you saying that the small percentage of people who you believe understand the difference between marriage and marriage benefits will fail to convince the majority or will they succeed (in the context of creating legislation)? It seems like you think they will fail, which will lead to some further legislative gains by the majority who believe marriage and marriage benefits must be tied, and that this will lead to other issues.
I don't know if they will or not. That's the point. I can only tell you the effects in operation, how they interact, and what may result depending on how those interactions go forward. I told you what I'd *like* to have happen. But I honestly have no clue whether that will happen or not. None at all. Couldn't place even vague odds on it.
Quote:
Will then the issue of gay marriage be settled the way liberals want it (nationally, with full straight marriage benefits), and will this be permanent? Or do you think at some point this minority might convince or correct the alleged misunderstandings of the majority?
Perhaps. Again. I don't know. I can only keep on explaining my point of view on this issue in the hopes that if enough people are exposed to it, maybe the light will go on and they'll realize that the are charging off to fix a problem which isn't the one they really need to fix.
I kinda see it like a group of people working really hard to fix the oven in their home, but the problem is that the power lines are down. But when someone points out this fact, they get accused of not wanting to help fix the oven, followed with dire predictions of starvation if they can't cook their food, etc...
Yes. It's a silly analogy, but that's the way I see this. You've got a group of people who've become so wrapped up in the "cause" in front of them, that they just can't step back from it and see the larger picture.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
You've got a group of people who've become so wrapped up in the "cause" in front of them, that they just can't step back from it and see the larger picture.
It's funny, 'cause that's how I see the people on the opposition. People like you.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Another way of reduing the number of poor children (which includes those in the foster care system) in society is by encouraging people to get married and adopt when they can't have kids.
Sure. As I stated. I have no issues at all with gay couples adopting. Here's the thing though. There is zero need to tie adoption to the issuance of a state marriage license, or even being married, or a couple. Being able to provide a good home is the most important thing.
What you're essentially asking for is to weaken the thing which is supposed to reduce the number of kids in that state in the first place, but gaining nothing in return. You can accomplish both sides *without* hurting either. If you simply choose a different path...
gbaji wrote:
Why wouldn't you couple the ceremony with the marriage benefits?
Why would you? Let's flip this around. Are you saying we should pass a law making it illegal to hold a marriage ceremony unless the people in the ceremony hold a state issued marriage license? Isn't that a reduction of freedom? Right now, we're free to have any sort of ceremony we want (assuming it doesn't include ritual sacrifice or some other illegal activities). If I want to hold a marriage ceremony between me and my cat, I can. If I'm willing to pay for it, invite friends and family (and they want to show up), I can do that. There's nothing stopping me. Or you. Or any gay couple. Or whatever.
By insisting on tying the concept of a marriage (or even a wedding) to a state issued piece of paper, you are limiting our rights, not expanding them. Break out of that mindset. Understand that our actions are not mandated by the state. The state grants a piece of paper, which in turn grants a set of benefits if we meet the criteria. That is all. That does not define what a "marriage" is. It only really defines a set of benefits which match up with a set of requirements. No matter what labels we apply, that's all that's really going on here.
Quote:
It is part and parcel to what a marriage is.
No! Oh god please no! It's not. It really isn't. You've become so convinced of this that you're not just willingly giving up your own freedom, but demanding that you be required to. Can't you see that? There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license. The state may even demand that you be defined as married (common law) if you meet certain requirements. Nowhere does the law go the other direction. No where does the law say you cannot marry without a state license. You simply can't qualify for the benefits of having that license.
You have to stop thinking that a marriage "is" the state license. It's not. People got married for thousands of years before governments started creating licenses and attaching benefits to them. Why on earth do you believe now that marriage can 't exist without those things?
Open your mind.
Quote:
I think your problem is that you're only thinking of the tax issues, and not the slew of other benefits that go along with a marriage license. Like the right to visit a loved on in the hospital. Or inheritance rights.
/banghead
Sigh... Not this again.
The power to visit a loved one in the hospital, and to make health decisions regarding that person is *not* one of the things you get with the state license. I've pointed this out in every single gay marriage thread we've had. I know you've read this before. But. Exactly as I predicted the last time, the next time the subject comes up, it's like you all forget that I debunked this the last time. And the time before that. And the time before that.
That power derives from the civil contract you and your partner enter into. You do *not* need a marriage license to legally enter into a marriage contract. As I just pointed out. The law goes in the other direction. You must enter into a marriage contract to get a marriage license. There is no restriction or requirement in the other direction. None at all.
It's like no matter how many times I say that same thing, it just fails to sink in. Stop arguing and listen to what I"m saying. Think about it for yourself. Make your own decision. Don't let the "cause" blind you to common sense and reason.
Edited, Mar 10th 2010 1:48pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
What the fUCk.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji wrote:
It's like no matter how many times I say that same thing, it just fails to sink in. Stop arguing and listen to what I"m saying. Think about it for yourself. Make your own decision. Don't let the "cause" blind you to common sense and reason.
It fails to sink in because it's demonstrably false.
He's arguing with you because you are wrong.
I'm betting he has thought about it; and made a decision.
Don't let the "cause" blind you to common sense and reason.
Just as Planned.
It's like he's Gene Ray or something.
Just as Planned.
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Gbaji's trying to slip into the New Age "Dude, if you just say you're married then you're married, man!" bullshit. Which is just as true as if I say I'm a lawyer and hold that true in my heart, then I'm a real lawyer no matter what the Man says.
Unfortunately, it's pretty much accepted by the non-retarded that discussions about what it takes to becomes married (or become a lawyer) are discussions about what it takes to be in legally recognized married (or a legally licensed laywer).
Unfortunately, it's pretty much accepted by the non-retarded that discussions about what it takes to becomes married (or become a lawyer) are discussions about what it takes to be in legally recognized married (or a legally licensed laywer).
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Oh, gosh. There was a truly epic thread in which she insisted that you are guilty until proven innocent, or some such.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
She had some really good internet lawyers too.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Found it. Enjoy that, now.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Technically Gbaji is the new Niobia who was the new Gbaji since I'm pretty sure the infamous date rape thread predated Niobia.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Technically Gbaji is the new Niobia who was the new Gbaji since I'm pretty sure the infamous date rape thread predated Niobia.
You know, I saw a post of yours in the thread I linked in which you said something like the only active thread in =4 was the stupid rape thread, and I wondered whether that was the infamous date rape thread.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Why would you? Let's flip this around. Are you saying we should pass a law making it illegal to hold a marriage ceremony unless the people in the ceremony hold a state issued marriage license? Isn't that a reduction of freedom? Right now, we're free to have any sort of ceremony we want (assuming it doesn't include ritual sacrifice or some other illegal activities). If I want to hold a marriage ceremony between me and my cat, I can. If I'm willing to pay for it, invite friends and family (and they want to show up), I can do that. There's nothing stopping me. Or you. Or any gay couple. Or whatever.
You can hold the ceremony, but it's meaningless to the outside world. The world you have to live in. Where you have to call the cable company and get something changed, but your name isn't on the account as the primary contact and your "husband" (who isn't your husband because you can't get married) is out of town.
gbaji wrote:
By insisting on tying the concept of a marriage (or even a wedding) to a state issued piece of paper, you are limiting our rights, not expanding them. Break out of that mindset. Understand that our actions are not mandated by the state. The state grants a piece of paper, which in turn grants a set of benefits if we meet the criteria. That is all. That does not define what a "marriage" is. It only really defines a set of benefits which match up with a set of requirements. No matter what labels we apply, that's all that's really going on here.
It defines a marriage to everyone outside of your household. Everyone in the REAL world.
gbaji wrote:
No! Oh god please no! It's not. It really isn't. You've become so convinced of this that you're not just willingly giving up your own freedom, but demanding that you be required to. Can't you see that? There is no law requiring a state marriage license for you to be married. Zip. Zero. Nada. The laws go the other direction. You must be married (and a specific subset of marriages) to qualify for the state license. The state may even demand that you be defined as married (common law) if you meet certain requirements. Nowhere does the law go the other direction. No where does the law say you cannot marry without a state license. You simply can't qualify for the benefits of having that license.
You have to stop thinking that a marriage "is" the state license. It's not. People got married for thousands of years before governments started creating licenses and attaching benefits to them. Why on earth do you believe now that marriage can 't exist without those things?
You have to stop thinking that a marriage "is" the state license. It's not. People got married for thousands of years before governments started creating licenses and attaching benefits to them. Why on earth do you believe now that marriage can 't exist without those things?
You're confusing the terms relationship and marriage. Once again, in the real world, a piece of paper is required to do certain things. I'm not even talking about the state benefits.
gbaji wrote:
The power to visit a loved one in the hospital, and to make health decisions regarding that person is *not* one of the things you get with the state license. I've pointed this out in every single gay marriage thread we've had. I know you've read this before. But. Exactly as I predicted the last time, the next time the subject comes up, it's like you all forget that I debunked this the last time. And the time before that. And the time before that.
That power derives from the civil contract you and your partner enter into. You do *not* need a marriage license to legally enter into a marriage contract. As I just pointed out. The law goes in the other direction. You must enter into a marriage contract to get a marriage license. There is no restriction or requirement in the other direction. None at all.
That power derives from the civil contract you and your partner enter into. You do *not* need a marriage license to legally enter into a marriage contract. As I just pointed out. The law goes in the other direction. You must enter into a marriage contract to get a marriage license. There is no restriction or requirement in the other direction. None at all.
You've never debunked it. You've claimed that these benefits can be given by paying gobs of money to a lawyer to draft up a contract and by jumping through a minefield of legal loopholes. All of which can be avoided simply by issuing the two people in question a ******* marriage license. Nobody has forgotten your twisted logic on the subject. It just doesn't make sense.
And I would say that, making two people jump through hoops and pay through the nose to make a lawyer grant them the same rights that two other people can get from a $90 marriage certificate is discrimination.
Samira wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is the new Niobia.
Found it. Enjoy that, now.
niobia wrote:
Please refrain from foul language in the OOT jophiel,
I guess you can't say **** here, either.
Sure you can. That thread was in the OOT.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 399
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (399)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- CA State Senator DUI (with bonus gay nightclub hijinks)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC