Marriage and Law

[dukeofbaja]

Again, civil unions would give Gays the same rights.

Anyone for a game of madlibs? We need a separate but equal insitution, a minority group, and a basic tenant of liberty.

Again, segregated schools would give blacks the same education.

 

[upnorth2505]

Again, civil unions would give Gays the same rights. Refusing to destroy the meaning of the term "marriage" does not deny anyone equal rights. You can not steal words in order to co-opt their meaning and force people to accept your ways.

If civil unions were to give the same rights, then such a law would have to be written that stated "it is understood that civil unions confir EVERY legal benefit and obligation of marriage."

If you are going to do that, just let gay folks get married.

Besides, civil unions would carry an inferior social status which implies second class citizen in my opinion.

 

[BigTitLvr]

Outdated morals? What a laugh. Go down the Ten Commandments then tell us which ones are "outdated."

ummm...most of the ten commandments are bullshit and out-dated.

Dont murder, dont steal. -throw the rest off mount sinai.

 

[BigTitLvr]

Jesse Ventura suggested a simple fix to this problem:

Let the State acknowledge ONLY Civil Unions. And anyone can be joined in civil union.

Let the Church only acknowledge marriages. If your church doesn't, you're in the wrong church for you.

 

[Keenly]

You can not steal words in order to co-opt their meaning and force people to accept your ways.

its ironic that your doing the same exact thing

 

[mindphuk]

The vast majority of Blacks disagree whole heartedly that there is any parallel between their status as minorities and that of Gays. Furthermore, they disagree that gay marriage and inter-racial marriage are in any way the same thing.

Inter-racial couples fit the legal definition of marriage and always have.

Again, civil unions would give Gays the same rights. Refusing to destroy the meaning of the term "marriage" does not deny anyone equal rights. You can not steal words in order to co-opt their meaning and force people to accept your ways.

Blacks and interracial couples' opinions are irrelevant. Do you think they all are experts in jurisprudence and Constitutional Law?

Prior to Loving v. Virginia, the 'definition' of marriage was a man and a woman of the same race. They did NOT fit the presiding legal definition of the day and they DID change the definition of marriage in the US.

Ignoring the 'separate but equal' for a minute, you still cannot claim that civil unions give the same rights as marriage. Civil unions are not universally recognized by all states, and they do not in any way afford the same privileges and rights at the federal level either.

Why does YOUR definition of marriage trump that of everyone else? The definition of marriage has gone through many changes over the course of human history, yet you continue to ignore this fact. Marriages used to be about ownership of woman, they have been used to form alliances and consolidate empires. Marriages of same-sex individuals have been recognized in this and other countries. Civil marriage is merely a legal contract that is recognized by the state. Any requirements for religious marriage will not change. No one is forcing churches or other religious institutions to change their definition. This is ONLY a matter of the state.

 

[Keenly]

why dont we just outlaw all marriage

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

why dont we just outlaw all marriage

Best idea in a long time.

Seriously though, I am personally not 100% comfortable with the idea of a man being married to another man, BUT (no pun), I also realize no group of people are any better than any other group of people and simply because one group is the minority does not make them wrong or inferior. EVERYONE should be afforded the same rights as anyone else whether they are rich, poor, brown, purple, sick, healthy, straight, or gay.

 

[mindphuk]

why dont we just outlaw all marriage

There's a problem. When individuals wed, they take each other as part of immediate family. If we are not going to recognize marriages, then any law that currently recognizes the spouse as privileged, such as marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege, tax treatment, inheritance, medical proxy, etc. will all have to be abolished as well. I think you would have a fight on your hands with that one.

 

[Hayduke]

Keenly summed it up pretty good

One right that is guaranteed in the Constitution is the freedom to one's own beliefs. To change the meaning of one of the most fundamental underlying concepts of our culture is to deny the majority their rights.

So...your words...trumps...constitutional freedoms?

By you trying to impose your beliefs while simultaneously negating the opposing belief...is...ready for this...Denying me (and the diversity of all other beliefs) my right to my "beliefs"....And I 'aint gay or moron[sic!]...dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...

I wonder if the same people who worry about the hijacking of the accepted meaning of a word...are the same ones who have in ~20 years changed the understood meaning of the word Theory????

You can not steal words in order to co-opt their meaning and force people to accept your ways.

yeah...like Conservative...or even worse Libertarian!

Jesse Ventura suggested a simple fix to this problem:

Let the State acknowledge ONLY Civil Unions. And anyone can be joined in civil union.

Let the Church only acknowledge marriages. If your church doesn't, you're in the wrong church for you.

Freaking brilliant!

 

[Rob Roy]

Keenly stated, Keenly.

America has a long history of protecting the rights of the minority.....because it is the right fucking thing to do.

I'm thinking of going a bit further to protect everybody's rights....

There should be no special rights or protections for ANY classes of people. ALL individuals rights, white, black, gay, straight etc. should be protected.
Nobody should have any more or less rights based on orientation, affiliation or
ethnicity etc.

 

[upnorth2505]

I'm thinking of going a bit further to protect everybody's rights....

There should be no special rights or protections for ANY classes of people. ALL individuals rights, white, black, gay, straight etc. should be protected.
Nobody should have any more or less rights based on orientation, affiliation or
ethnicity etc.

I agree. BUT, as long as there are zealots like RW, we need to make sure that some do not get run over by a steamroller.

 

[fdd2blk]

I agree. BUT, as long as there are zealots like RW, we need to make sure that some do not get run over by a steamroller.

why is this NOT a personal attack worthy of an infraction?

please tell me, or don't pm when you get hit.

 

[dukeofbaja]

zeal·ot

   /ˈzɛl

ət/ Show Spelled[zel-uh

t] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person who shows zeal.

2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.


Borderline, worse stuff gets said. One needs to have thick skin to stick around ANY political forum

 

[fdd2blk]

zeal·ot

   /ˈzɛl

ət/ Show Spelled[zel-uh

t] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person who shows zeal.

2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.


Borderline, worse stuff gets said. One needs to have thick skin to stick around ANY political forum

well since YOU justified it, i guess i shouldn't bother.

 

[mindphuk]

What's the matter Rick? Why won't you answer any of my questions? Too hard?