So, let’s be honest. The state does not marry. It issues licenses for a fee.

That dog won’t hunt.

I pulled this from the State of New York: ” 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section eleven of this article or any other law, the governing body of any village, town, or city may appoint one or more marriage officers who shall have the authority to solemnize a marriage which marriage shall be valid if performed in accordance with other provisions of law. Nothing herein contained shall nullify the authority of other persons authorized to solemnize marriages.”

The state does marry. Everything to the contrary is foolish word games.

For the record, I have also claimed that whether or not the child is related genetically to 2, 1 or 0 of the parents, many gay and lesbian couples actively raise their children together – thus ‘reproducing’ their values or spirit as a couple. And thus making a GAY NUCLEAR FAMILY. (Or a gay-headed nuclear family; I have not figured out which neologism is better, yet.) Demonize me on that, AE.

You are the one who claims two men can reproduce.

For the record, I have repeatedly claimed nothing more or less than that gay and lesbian couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples. That is, they can reproduce with the assistance of outsiders and technology – as do infertile straight couples. Depending on the precise technique used (e.g., whether the egg donor or sperm donor was a family member of the other partner), the resulting child might be genetically related to one or both of the parents.

Bigger lies, AE! Think bigger! Bolder! Try to claim I’m a child molester, or something.

We need still more name-calling from you, please! LOL

So, I am more than happy to keep calling you what you are: a proven sleazy, discredited, bald-faced liar unable to back up ANY of his arguments with sources.

My advice: Still more name-calling, please. And bigger, bolder lies. That’s what this thread needs.

You truly are pathetic. This is why I say you need psychiatric help.

According to you I am a liar, and Merriam-Webster is a liar, Encarta is a liar, indeed ALL the online dictionaries are liars, the state legislatures are all liars, all the state laws defining marriage are lies, and the ONLY one telling the truth is poor little ILC who cannot cite ANY source ANYWHERE that upholds his definition of what the purpose of marriage is, and instead quotes “reality”.

You wouldn’t know reality ILC if it came up and smacked you in the face with a stack of dictionaries. You are the one who claims two men can reproduce.

Your a bald-faced liar, a Clintonian redefiner, and a man of Sullivinian honesty and character.

In other words you are a pathetic lying wreck. And you’ve been exposed.

Go away.

In the Episcopal Church, the two individuals marry each other. God is assumed to be present, consecrating their union. The Church’s role is only to witness, announce and lead prayers for what the individuals (plus God) have just done.

The State has yet another role. The State licenses / recognizes a new legal entity, “The marriage of … [insert individuals' names]“, having its own interests apart from those of the individuals. The new entity is supported by the law in various ways. In effect, it imposes obligations (or at least certain costs) on the rest of society. That is why a State marriage license is a privilege, not a right. (Privilege == something legislated/created by government; right == something morally above government, that a just government bows down to.)

Is a civil union any different than two committed people starting a small business in the eyes of the state? Not really. Both have to get a permit and pay a fee. Once the state has issued the certificate it could care less.

When a couple are married in the church, the church becomes part of their lives. They are married, not only to each other, but the church community. The community cares about their marriage. It makes them feel welcome. It is there to help when in need. It is there for the couple to offer themselves to help others. None of this is incorporated in the state.

So, let’s be honest. The state does not marry. It issues licenses for a fee. To the state a civil union, beauty shop or auto repair shop are the same. When the state marries a couple (straight, gay or whatever) it is a civil union and nothing more.

“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot.” Among those attending was Mark Goldberg, the Providence East Sider whose five-week battle to claim the body of his partner of 17 years from the state morgue, had sparked the vetoed legislation. Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples and others — such as widows living with widowers, and widows with other widows — outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage. “Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.

My experience has been that when people hiss “bigot” and are given the chance to show their fannies, they will go full bore and show the world what really drives them. Instead of reasoned people, they end up looking more like flamingos on ice skates attempting to tango with a jelly fish.

I followed the link posted in #12 above and it provides a classic example of a narrow minded hater who ends up sputtering and chocking on his spittle. Like the Kos Kids, he may create a whole basement full of agreeing misfits, but he can not get together a simple cogent argument.

The more radical gays do their “best” to “shame” people to accept gay marriage, the more determined the people become to shove them back. I am beginning to rethink whether I care to continue to support civil unions.

Pointing out that the actual statutory definitions of marriage agree with me and not with you

…is making a false point, since in fact they agree with me: They give a couple a way to declare themselves “a family” in the eyes of the law, whether or not that couple intends to have children, is capable of having children, or fully intends to kill every unborn child they might have.

That’s reality, AE. Face up to it.

…is not demonizing you

Lying outright about me, AE, as you have done over and over like a leftist when you couldn’t get your way, is demonizing me. For example:

- The time you tried to tell people I supported bestiality. (For the sane people here: Needless to say, I never have.)

- Or in a more recent discussion, AE, you tried sleazy tricks to misrepresent/falsify my actual views… not only not only once, but twice. (The two links are to places where I pointed it out for the record.)

So all my points stand. The proven liar here, American Elephant, would be you. You can’t tolerate people whose opinions are different than yours. And you mostly can’t answer my points. When backed into a corner, you habitually tell outright lies about your opponents (not only me, I’ve seen you do it to others) – then call them liars. American Elephant, you disgrace yourself.

Pointing out that the actual statutory definitions of marriage agree with me and not with you is not demonizing you, its calling you to the carpet for making up definitions out of whole cloth and being unable to cite any examples of where the people agree with you about what the purpose of their own freaking institution is.

Pointing out that you try to redefine the English language to try and win arguments, even when you are smacked in the face with a stack of dictionaries is not demonizing you. Its pointing out that you are less intellectual honest than Bill Clinton and Andrew Sullivan.

Calling you a liar is not demonizing you, its recognizing reality.

Look. I am deeply sorry that this upsets you so. You have clearly demonstrated over and over again that you have far more time to waste and far more emotional investment in “winning” arguments over the internet than anyone else. Redefining the language, creating long, dishonest flow charts of who said what to whom. I’m surprised you haven’t created power point presentations.

But none of that makes you right, and it certainly doesn’t make you a winner. It just makes you an even bigger, more dishonest loser.

And yes, arguing with people as deeply dishonest and sleezy as you EXASPERATES me FULLY! to the point where I must stop trying to argue with a liar who still cant admit hes wrong even when hes smacked in the face with a dozen dictionaries proving him wrong.

So I withdraw. You win! You are the biggest retard at the special olympics, and I came in a close second for trying to engage in honest debate with such a sleazy, dishonest jerk.

there’s no guarantee that you always win electoral or legislative battles. Sometimes you just are in the minority. That’s the case on gay marriage across the country. Sure, it’s frustrating, just like small government types are frustrated.

Real American, exactly. (I’m in both categories – small government, pro-gay marriage.)