|
|
Overturning of Gay Marriage Ban in CA
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's certainly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, it's a short one in a still long-to-come battle. Fortunately, more and more people are seeing that granting marriage rights to homosexuals does nothing to diminish their own marriages, which is something that fools like NOM don't want you to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Legally, it's hard to argue that it's the wrong decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow!!! For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country! (Someday I may even return!)
|
I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by imitchellg5
Legally, it's hard to argue that it's the wrong decision.
In what other ways could the decision be arrived at by a judge?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but I am genuinely confused at your suggested assertion that there might be other ways for a judge to arrive at a decision. The only thing a judge has to consider when evaluating a case is the legal parameters of it. There is NO other way a judge can evaluate a case except in light of its legal merits.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.
This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.
This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.
Care to explain why the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply to homosexuals?
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Rumor
Care to explain why the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply to homosexuals?
Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is why:
"The exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."
If there comes a time when that can be said about siblings, then your concern would be a valid issue, rather than a strawman.
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
There is NO doubt that this was a wrong decision. It goes against the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct.
This subjective judgement WILL be overturned.
Capitalizing the NO just makes you sound more bullheaded, not more correct. And that's what almost all the rights guaranteed in the constitution are FOR: to go agains the legal ability of the people to create laws based on what they believe is correct. Otherwise the people would have removed your right of free speech, religion, assembly, guns, etc by now. The majority of voters is not the last word on what's legal thank God, especially not such a bare majority as amended the Calif constitution to eliminate it's requirement that all citizens be treated equally. And it definitely can't over-rule the US Constitution's requirement of equal treatment. So YES there is a doubt that the court made the wrong decision. In fact there is NO doubt that it's the right decision and NO court has EVER ruled the other way on this issue.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.
Sexual orientation is a protected class because it has a long history of irrational discrimination against it. That's the basis for all protected classes. The equal protection argument only works if the state doesn't have a compelling interest in passing the law and states DO have a compelling interest in preventing unions of siblings. There are many arguments for gay marriage and you've just singed out one to defend sibling marriage but there are other arguments against it that don't apply to gay marriage. The court said that there is no compelling reason to discriminate against gay marriage, but there would be against sibling marriage. I hope I'm not repeating myself in my attempt to be clear.
|
I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status:
Offline
|
|
How funny.... after all that money the Mormons spent on Prop 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.
Special Rights ≠ Equal Rights
What the majority wishes is not necessarily fair, just, or right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships.
The natural conclusion to this statement seems to be "a gay relationship is therefore an unnatural event." I can't wait for the response.
...which, I sure, will include the point that "gay relationships" are indeed found "in nature." If that doesn't make them at least somewhat of a natural event, then I have trouble thinking of what would pass that test....
greg
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.
You seem to have forgotten a fundamental tenet of law in this country: The "wishes of the majority" are not a factor in deciding what make laws Constitutionally acceptable. Morality, religious belief, and collective thinking (the "wishes of the majority") have NO role in deciding whether or not a piece of legislation is Constitutionally acceptable.
In fact, throughout the history of the United States the "wishes of the majority" have run counter to the principles of equality laid down in the Constitution on numerous occassions (c.f.: slavery, women's suffrage, racial segregation, personal privacy).
So no, the "wishes of the majority" are completely irrelevant when it comes to deciding the Constitutionality of a specific piece of legislation. This decision confirms that Constitutionally affirmed equality for all trumps the "wishes of the majority".
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.
I don't think this decision makes sexual orientation a "protected class". On the contrary, this decision affirms that sexual orientation is, in fact, irrelevant when it comes to the state's duty to provide services equally to all its citizens. One of those duties/responsibilities is to recognize the legal/contractual obligations that arise when two consenting adults wish to join their lives together in marriage. This decision merely affirms that this duty/responsibility of the state applies to everyone whether those "two consenting adults" are male/male, male/female, or female/female.
As for your comment about siblings getting married, the government does have a vested interested in keeping siblings from getting married because of the high potential for mentally deficient offspring due to inbreeding. The large number of mentally deficient offspring that would result due to inbreeding would be inherently detrimental to the state. However there is no similar vested interest on the part of the government from keeping homosexual citizens from getting married. A marriage of homosexuals is not inherently detrimental to the well-being of the state as it has no negative side effects/repercussions to the well-being of the state.
(
Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 5, 2010 at 09:15 AM.
Reason: fixed a typo.)
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Atheist
What the majority wishes is not necessarily fair, just, or right.
THIS.
The wishes of the majority, simply by default of being in the majority, due not make said wishes Constitutionally valid. The whole premise of the founding of our country is that "the wishes" of any one (i.e.: King George III) or any group (the majority) do not become law simply because their wishes are deemed to be correct. The whole premise of the founding of our country is that laws are subject to review and/or revision based on whether they comport with the founding document of this country, our Constitution.
(
Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM.
)
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
This thread should be a blast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hopefully B@d|<0$|-| will pick up the slack since Big Mac is missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
So the marriage that gays have will be different than man-woman marriages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Especially if the gays are also LIBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Laminar
Hopefully B@d|<0$|-| will pick up the slack since Big Mac is missing.
Don't you mean stupendousman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
BadKosh: should government be in the marriage business?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
So, the government's position is "equal protection, unless you're in the army and then we can fire your ass"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
So, the government's position is "equal protection, unless you're in the army and then we can fire your ass"?
Semi-off topic, could someone sue the army on those grounds? Because I would think that'd have happened already if you could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
If it were up to me, the government would simply get out of the "marriage" business altogether. The government would simply recognize "civil unions". Marriage could then be in the realm of the religious institutions that sanction them ... to grant or deny as they see fit. However, only civil unions would have any legal standing ... and they would be granted for any two unrelated individuals of legal age.
A civil union would not be in force until the civil union license is signed by both parties, the officiant, and a witness.
Religious institutions may, at their discretion, choose to allow its clergy to be officiants at a "marriage" ceremony where a civil union license is subsequently signed ... but they would not be forced to do so. However, if they do choose to allow their clergy to sign a civil union license they must not discriminate against any legally eligible couple. In that capacity they are essentially acting as an agent of the State .... so the law must be respected. If they are unwilling to do that across the board then they can't do it at all ... and all marriage ceremonies they perform would need to be followed-up with signing of the civil union license by a legally recognized officiant.
This way ... everybody can just STFU about the whole "gay marriage" issue. And those that insist on complaining anyway can be justifiably ignored.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
OAW: Stop making sense!
This is one issue that seems to have such simple solutions compared to other contentious issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
So what's the verb for the act of being put into a civil union? What's the adjective? (i.e., what's the new marry and married?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
So what's the verb for the act of being put into a civil union? What's the adjective? (i.e., what's the new marry and married?)
Unionized? No, I guess that's already taken. That's just what the LIBERALS would want, actually: unionized marriages.
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Don't you mean stupendousman?
Is he gone? I'll miss his stubborn fixation on shower analogies.
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The argument for siblings, in theory, could fall under the Equal Protection clause, however, that is not our discussion. Prop 8 allowed the State to deny rights to a section of its population, which under the Constitution, is not allowed.
As it goes for the civil union vs. marriage debate, you an I are on the same page. Marriage should be an institution of the Church, civil union that of the State. Getting married should not qualify someone for State benefits without a civil union by the State.
It seems that you, unlike some others, realize that letting Tom and Bob or Nancy and Mary get married has no bearings or consequences to your marriage or that of any other.
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
Is he gone? I'll miss his stubborn fixation on shower analogies.
I don't know, but this discussion about "normal" is definitely his territory. We're asking a lot to expect BadKosh to stand in for him, that's like relying on a kitten to guard your house from burglars!
(just teasing, BadKosh)
(
Last edited by besson3c; Aug 5, 2010 at 03:32 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
So which is it? Gays are special and deserve special treatment, OR they are not special and no special consideration should have ever been made. Re-defining what marriage is and what that purpose was is the wrong way to do this. The pairing of a male and female is a natural event, which can't be said of gay relationships. Making gay lifestyles some sort of institution is also against the wishes of the majority. The decision is based on false assumptions. Legislation from the bench against the majority is typical of the statist a$$h0les in power.
African Americans and women had little to no rights until the 20th century. I don't think the argument was ever made that they were special and deserved special treatment, just that they deserved to be treated equally.
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Care to explain why sexual orientation is a "protected" class? Look, as long as the government insists on being in the "marriage" business, it should grant civil unions to any two people who want to be married, but I'm not sure I understand the "equal protection" argument. I mean, a marriage of siblings wouldn't affect my marriage either, but I don't see anyone using the "equal protection" clause to argue their right to marry.
Equal protection means you can't limit someone's right just based on the person's color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth.
You can't say Blacks can't get married, but Whites can.
You can't say anyone who marries an Asian will lose their citizenship, but marrying other races is fine.
You can't say only Christians are allowed to get married.
If California passes a law to ban redheads from getting married, it would be unconstitutional.
Hair color is not a "protected" class.
If California passes a law to ban people with thick non-American accents from getting married, it would be unconstitutional.
People with thick accents aren't a "protected" class.
If California passes a law to ban bald men from getting married, it would be unconstitutional.
Baldness is not a "protected" class.
You can't just make arbitrary "class" restrictions and say the are not a "protected class" in order to limit a person's equal rights.
What's next? Ban gays from becoming US citizens such as Asians were denied US citizenship until 1943?
If Prop 8 is constitutional, then:
I say everyone with the last name "Smith" should not be allowed to get married.
Smith's aren't a protected class, so they should not receive "special" rights.
(
Last edited by hyteckit; Aug 5, 2010 at 02:06 PM.
)
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
That is egregiously arguable, and, really, a disservice to promoting a logical discussion in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ironknee
you can't limit love
Love, like morality and religious beliefs, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal ramifications of marriage.
Hell, when I was living in DC a buddy of mine and I almost got married just so he could get on my health insurance. He runs his own small home repair/renovation business and lost part of a finger in an accident with a table saw--the saw "caught" on the wood and his hand slipped off the pusher stick into the blade--and was not able to work for several months. Plus he had to fight the hospital to pay them in installments instead of one lump sum.
Anyway, we went back and forth on the matter for a couple months and were giving it serious thought. Because I lived in DC and worked for the federal government we didn't have to get married even, I would have had to just claim him as a domestic partner on my health insurance and file some other paperwork to assert he was my partner. But then I would up getting a promotion within my agency and moving to New York City. But yeah, the point of all of this is that love has nothing, NOTHING to do with the government's considerations regarding marriage. The legalities are all that matter.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
So what's the verb for the act of being put into a civil union? What's the adjective? (i.e., what's the new marry and married?)
Civilise(d)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Oisín
Civilise(d)?
Copulate, coupled, or joined.
Maybe unionized.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by hyteckit
Copulate
Nah, that’s for later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Oisín
Nah, that’s for later on.
I can guarantee the gays aren't putting off sex until after marriage!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
In what other ways could the decision be arrived at by a judge?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but I am genuinely confused at your suggested assertion that there might be other ways for a judge to arrive at a decision. The only thing a judge has to consider when evaluating a case is the legal parameters of it. There is NO other way a judge can evaluate a case except in light of its legal merits.
What? I wasn't suggesting that there was any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Atheist
I can guarantee the gays aren't putting off sex until after marriage!
Well, I’m sure there are some that are (you get weirdos in all groups ), but I was just pointing out that they wouldn’t—generally—be doing it while being civilised/unionised/coupled. I think that would rather offend the officiant’s * sense of decorum.
* Incidentally, what would those be called, then? Civilians/unionists/coupling devices?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
This is why:
"The exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."
Genders still have roles in society, roles that are immutable. At least, until men start giving birth.
If there comes a time when that can be said about siblings, then your concern would be a valid issue, rather than a strawman.
Last I checked, siblings are gendered like everyone else. Why are they any different that you wouldn't champion their right to marry?
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Rumor
The argument for siblings, in theory, could fall under the Equal Protection clause, however, that is not our discussion. Prop 8 allowed the State to deny rights to a section of its population, which under the Constitution, is not allowed.
The Constitution does not regard a marital "right", thus it is a right conferred on the States. i.e. marriage is not a right, it is a civil privilege granted on a State by State basis. A State may or may not incentivize and/or acknowledge a same-sex marriage, but gays can certainly marry and as such they have equal protection under the laws. Where this gets dicey and why I support civil unions is that it is decidedly unconstitutional to deny the sharing of property, estates, hospital visitation, etc...
As it goes for the civil union vs. marriage debate, you an I are on the same page. Marriage should be an institution of the Church, civil union that of the State. Getting married should not qualify someone for State benefits without a civil union by the State.
We are indeed on the same page.
It seems that you, unlike some others, realize that letting Tom and Bob or Nancy and Mary get married has no bearings or consequences to your marriage or that of any other.
I appreciate that we can disagree on aspects of this issue without it devolving to "you hate gays" and caricatures of arguments that have nothing to do with the arguments themselves. Seriously, thank you. That's not only a rarity around here, it is particularly rare on this issue.
I'm disappointed at times with how some have expressed their opposition to gay marriage and how it "destroys the definition of marriage". Obviously, marriage has come to its dismal condition exclusively because of how heterosexuals have defined it; a lifelong commitment of monogamy you make at least twice in a lifetime, to two or more people, with prenups to protect assets, and court proceedings to decide who gets the kids you created.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Last I checked, siblings are gendered like everyone else. Why are they any different that you wouldn't champion their right to marry?
Inbreeding increases significantly the risks of hereditary genetic disorders.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status:
Offline
|
|
why do you care if gays marry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|