Allow me to pitch another then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Black people are entitled to equal rights.
But people who ACT BLACK are not. You can discriminate against those ones.
Same sort of thing you're arguing, really.
Printable View
Allow me to pitch another then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Black people are entitled to equal rights.
But people who ACT BLACK are not. You can discriminate against those ones.
Same sort of thing you're arguing, really.
Condoms for the win!Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more. In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously. What they want contradicts with others belief systems, yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream. Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage. It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it. It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same. I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.
They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.
Yes like those damn blacks when we gave them equality... ohh no wait a second... though i suppose you do have affirmative action in the US, but barring that we gave opressed minoritys equality, its a common scare tactic to pertend minority x wants more than everyone else, a classic excuse to keep minoritys down...
It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.
Well gays couldn't get married in america before mass. im not sure why exactly... was it that the goverment or state wouldn't recognise such a union ? thats as good as law...
I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states,
Wasn't marriage around before the major religions we had today, im sure there was some prototype version at least, but anyway there are gay churches, whose to say these gay churches are any less entitled to marriage than some of the major ones ?
This is not a valid argument to deny a group equal civil rights. The list of things that gay couples cannot get, or can get only after drawing up a slew of contracts in an attorney's office (which might be challenged just about anywhere) has been listed earlier in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
It has nothing to do with the comparison not being valid, and more to do with the black community being extremely religious and not "totally lib" on every issue like people tend to dismiss them as. Both the black and hispanic communities tend to be liberal economically and conservative socially. And the yes on 8 ad campaigns played to religious fears which had nothing to do with the law in question. And, people do not need to "prove that they deserve" equal rights. If any once spat-upon group in the U.S. had to do that, they probably never would have gained equal rights. You can still find plenty of people today who still hold pre-1965 views on non-white minority groups.Quote:
In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously.
There is only one belief system that should matter when it comes to a question of legal rights: equal protections. Whether or not someone doesn't like gay people or gay lifestyles on particular religious grounds is entirely irrelevant.Quote:
What they want contradicts with others belief systems
You think George Takei of Star Trek/Heroes just wanted legally recognized rights with his life partner just to "make America prove it could be P.C."? Or do you think it might have a little more to do with the fact that he worries about what would happen if he were in a critical medical condition and the hospital staff was saying "family and spouses only"? If you think this whole issue is a nitpick over nothing then I can only guess it's because you take the legal rights that come with marriage for granted, and don't appreciate how wide-ranging and important they are for people living together as a family unit.Quote:
yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream.
You, like almost every other people who approves of Prop 8, don't even understand the law you are talking about. Prop 8 was not "legalizing gay marriage." Prop 8 was writing a BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE into the state constitution. So if you think this was all just some people causing ruckus and trouble, go take that up with the Knights of Columbus and the religious people who spent millions of dollars to get this ban written, who were never going to be negatively impacted by gay people getting married in any way whatsoever.Quote:
Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage.
1. No, the Constitution delineates freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.Quote:
It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it.
2. No, telling people to just "work around" a discriminatory law violates Constitutional guarantees of equal protections.
It IS law. You are reinventing all of history in order to make your argument. If you think law has no business regulating marriage then you are about 300 years late to the party in the United States.Quote:
It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married,
Gay marriage was established without the need of laws? Since when?Quote:
it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.
I would agree with you that the Knights of Columbus lying in a multimillion dollar ad campaign to get a religious ban rights for groups that live a lifestyle not approved by Christian contemporary moral thinking written into state law is a big violation of church and state. Maybe a court will agree with that and strike it down in the inevitable challenge. But I think you are way off reinventing this issue as just gay people demanding excessive special privileges, complaining, or causing legal trouble. This was a religiously-funded law to ban equal rights for gay people.Quote:
I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.
Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.
Why must this contract that gives powers regarding medical procedures etc be limited to those who enter into relationships based upon sexual attraction - that would be discriminating against those who don't want to for whatever reason.
As with the last thread, this is a matter of wording. Nobody can ever change what the traditional meaning of marriage is, if they allow homosexual couples to marry then they are creating a completely different institution.
A much better idea would be to allow everyone to pick one person, whether they are a sexual partner or not, and say that they can say what will happen if they lie dying in hospital etc.
The "equality" argument falls flat because the same rules do apply to everyone. I, a heterosexual, cannot marry another man either. The rules are consistent for everyone. The way gay marriage supporters try to sneak "equal rights" into the issue is by talking about "love" or "attraction", neither of which are prerequisites for civil marriage.
The argument is about homosexual couples wanting a government benefit recognizing their union. They can make their case for that- persuade enough people and they'll get it. Ramming it thru the courts however, leads to backlashes like we've seen in California. Now it's part of the state constitution and it will be much tougher to implement even if they do get more support for it.
This really isnt about rights at all. It's about Judicial overreach
No it isn't. The courts are doing their job when they find that a state law violates a Constitutional protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:Quote:
Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.
I wish this really, really, Bush-level bad argument would be retired by the opponents of gay marriage already. It's utterly ridiculous.
The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
If you want a contract between two men as 'life partners', then you can never make it a true marriage.
Also what of those who do not want any form of life partner? Why are they discriminated against?
The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.
So, if gay marriage:
a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were
Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.
Alright, you want to give up all the tax benefits you will receive when you marry, and later, when you have children? And relinquish all your inheritance, property, insurance and medical decisionmaking rights? Somehow I think all of these arguments of convenience that marriage should be defined by religious tradition and not by law would force a lot of people to change their tune if it were applied to deconstructing heterosexual, legal marriage in western countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
You think that gay marriage just lets any male make a medical decision for any other male? This was a really dumb point.Quote:
The answer to solving the problem of who's going to make decisions for you when your in a hospital bed cannot be solved simply by giving those powers to whoever you happen to be sexually attracted to, because that will not cover everyone.
a) This is not a semantic debate about what should go in the dictionary. This is a legal battle over legal rights. Try to ingest that point because all the supporters of yes on 8 have repeatedly failed to do so and gone off on tangents about the traditional understanding of marriage as a cultural or religious concept. We're talking about a legal entity.Quote:
So, if gay marriage:
a) is not in fact a marriage in the true meaning of the word
b) does not end discrimination but rather only very marginally extends the franchise as it were
Then it is clearly not an ideal solution.
b) That is what civil rights movements are all about, spreading existing rights so that they equally apply to everyone.
Your understanding is flawed in this case. The Constitution doesn't say everyone has to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools either, but state-passed laws saying that water fountains and schools are only for certain races is unconstitutional nonetheless. Which was determined FIRST by courts, and only later by legislation.Quote:
The constitution never states marriage. Its my understanding that they are interpreting the word happiness to include gay marriage and IMO that is very much a stretch and how I feel about the issue shouldn't come into play. A referendum was the thing to do.
Something doesn't have to be specifically delineated in the Constitution for a Constitutional violation to occur when a law is passed on that topic. I'm sure the Constitution does not specifically say anything about how it's not okay to murder Texans in California, but a law saying it is okay to do so in California would be unconstitutional, and stricken down by the courts. And that would be the judicial system working perfectly - though some would call it legislating from the bench.
No, all the things you listed are required. But why should they be granted to those with a fetish over those who choose not to enter into sexual partnerships?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?
Comparing this to civil rights is a rather erroneous comparison and if the movement continues down this road it will only inflict more deafeats on itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Well considering murder is kind of an affornt to the pursuit of life as stated in the California constitution
The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.Quote:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
I'm in. Where's the petition? I'll sign right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Why should clearly inferior black people get rights equal to whites? :SHRUG:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And you guys wonder why the term "bigotry" comes up regarding the opposition to gay marriage crowd?Quote:
I'm sure it means more than that to them, but the government should not encourage perversions (you do acknowledge that's what it is?). It would mean a lot to TuffStuff if he could marry his toaster - but they just won't let him. :no:
a) I am fairly confident that homosexuals do not need your approval in order to pursue their equal civil rights, nor do I think this issue will go away until people who consider them nothing more than perversion fettishists "take them seriously."Quote:
a) Well unfortunately that legal entity is based on the traditional idea of marriage. And homosexuals should stop referring to it as 'gay marriage' if they wish to be taken seriously.
b) The constant comparisons to the civil rights movement is an insult to the suffering and prejudice that black people endured. Gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see. Why should they get to invent new institutions for themselves (because if you recongize its not marriage then that's what they would be doing)?
b) Oh please.
I'm a white guy in South Carolina in 1962. I don't see what this big hubbub is about interracial marriage. I mean, it ain't natural anyway. But some folks wanna do it. But we got laws against that sort of thing. Marriage is for white and white, or black on black... stick to your own kind. I mean, all these protests-- what's the big deal? There ain't no unfairness. A black person can't marry a white person, but I'm a white guy, I can't go marry a black person either. There's nothing unequal about the law.
And, Rhyfe, "gays have the same rights as everyone else as far as I can see" loses any of its potential benefit of the doubt when you refer to gay people as perversion fettishists. Besides, aren't you in the UK? Have you ever resided and lived in the United States? Or California? I don't really see what call, whatsoever, you would have to make that kind of an assessment. Your opposition to recognized gay rights in any form, in any locale, seems to be motivated by religious conviction of the "immorality" of homosexuality, period.
I have no idea why this is an erroneous comparison. Back in the 50's and 60's a lot of people considered blacks less than full white humans. Today a lot of people think gay people are just perverts and their right to form families and access legal rights which protect families should not be legally recognized. I fail to see the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about water fountains. However, the Constitution DOES include language about equal protections of all U.S. citizens, and equal rights. So courts rule this kind of business unconstitutional. The same rulings ... the "good rulings" that even you guys would agree with today, growing up after the history of formalized segregation, you would and do call "judicial overreaching" if applied today overturning voter-passed legislation.Quote:
The court would be within there rights as that is explicitly stated. There is nothing about marriage therefore this should've gone to the legislature. It didnt because the gays saw an opportunity to get it done through the courts because they knew they would take a VERY liberal view on the word happiness. Now its biting them. So poo on them for being dumb and not appealing to the mainstream.
Somehow the Knights of Columbus and other religious organizations which spent tens of millions to write a ban on gay marriage in California have failed to yet produce a similar bill to get rid of legal marriage altogether. Funny...Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Off-topicQuote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Do you believe that the Supreme Court should mandate paternity leave for husbands and boyfriends of pregnant women in the same way that they mandate it for the pregnant women? Using constitutional equal rights protection, of course.
I really don't understand why we need a legislature or referendums at all.
Maternity leave is MANDATED? If there is a law saying women cannot work during a certain point in the pregnancy I'm unaware of it. If you mean, should states have to ALLOW paternity leave or some form of time-off flexibility for fathers (doctors visits for wife, prenatal care appointments, and time after the baby is born) much of the first world already has this in law and certainly if a man was terminated from his job for reasonable absence related to having a new baby (taking the wife to important doctor's visits, helping with the care after birth, etc.), I believe he does and should have a case in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
But in regards to the second comment-- I'm not 100% sure this is what you meant, but... if what you mean is, it's "funny" how attempts to ban or restrict rights (things like Prop 187, Prop 8) always go to state ballot/referendum, and attempts to have rights recognized or discriminatory laws challenged goes to the courts, I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not difficult to have already existing prejudices or discriminatory practices upheld in a general, straight majority public vote. The courts, by virtue of not depending on popular vote, have both the leeway as well as the obligation to examine the issue within the greater context of Constitutionality and legally logical reasoning which of course, is not required and largely not a component of much of the public vote. The yes on 8 ads were proof enough of that... a lot of them didn't even touch the issue directly at all, and just told parents their kids would be "taught gay marriage" if they didn't vote yes. :idea2:
A voter making a call on oh I dunno... let's say a law about redlining, based on seeing a commercial with black kids hitting on white girls in high school, is something that has happened/does happen in our democratic process --- one would hope judges and the court system are not making their rulings based on the same mindset, though.
Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.
It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).
So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.
Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?
Oh FFS, am I really going to say this? I agree 100% with the dirty commie for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You just keep your eyes closed, ears covered, and keep chanting that to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.
All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.
EDIT:
I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.
I'm sorry - I meant mandated on the companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki...aternity_Leave
My point is that the maternity leave can be split, but more reasonably it should be more available to pregnant women. My point is that women have a special right that makes sense due to their sex. It is a separate right and I wouldn't push for men to have it. I find it similar to the right that women have to marry only men, and men have the right to marry women.
Your exceptions to that don't need to happen within the same institution and are covered in civil unions in your state.
The point is that separate rights based on sex are sometimes sensible and based on the sheer biology. Maternity leave and marriage are examples of those. If you want to get rid of or modify marriage as policy take it to the legislature.
This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
I will go with this. The goal is equality for all unions, or marriages, depending on how the government labels them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?
Sure - I think that this would get more people on board BUT we should bring it to the legislature and try to convince people.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
If the American people no longer believe that the government should have an interest in propagation or interpersonal relationships, we should change the existing policy. I'm not opposed to taking the government out of what we should or shouldn't be doing (when it doesn't involve homicide or other forms of aggressive tyranny) but we need to discuss it and change it by legislative action.
I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
We fought the Russians for to long.
Oh, okay. We fought the Nazis followed by the Russians. Double whammy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
You're being far too pessimistic here Seamus...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The foaming at the mouth part is over-exaggeration on your part. But you are a homophobe based on your previous statements, and you are trying to justify it through your religious views. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage. There is no difference between marriage, civil unions, whatever name you want to call it, all the same thing. As Horetore pointed out, marriage hasn't been about religion for centuries. It is about a desire for companionship and support, and for making a family. Oh wait, I guess that since clearly gay and lesbian couples can't naturally have kids just shoots that all out the window. And to think that I once thought like that too... :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I am against prop 8 for reasons I have stated above. I have not mentioned the bible nor will I to try and prove my point. You are fighting the wrong battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Sounds like foaming at the mouth to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
BAH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.
Neither does it matter what "every religion" say about it, simply because religion, thankfully, has no say in government. Separation of church and state FTW.
You are being absurd and fantastical, and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Strike has only supported his views in a constitutional manner, out of a sincere belief in his Republic, not God. You are being unfair and unwise in my opinion, most probably in fact as well. You and your movement will only alianate more and more people when you treat them like you have Strike. You are putting the bullet to your brain, quite willingly. You don't need to blame those religious idiots, just blamne your own self righteous crap.
Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Countries like Sweden and others allow paternity leave and I believe we will see more of this in the future, and I support it. Now that women are largely no longer "stay at home moms", and it will increasingly be the case that women are professionals and needed income earners, I would support any change in the laws allowing time split, flexibility, or paternity instead of maternity leave. We already have many clients (in my accounting workplace) where the dad comes in to take care of all the tax stuff, on weekdays, during the daytime, with kid in tow or on his shoulder, because between him and the mother, the wife made more money, and it was more financially sensible for him to take time off work with the newborn.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Strike, despite your claim that the comparison is erroneous, if you applied exactly the same logic you and many others seem to hold about the "role" of courts when it comes to deciding matters of legislation vs. civil rights, much of the civil rights movement would have been aborted. Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, Ex parte Endo, could all be painted as "judicial overreaching" if you espouse the idea that the court has no business overturning ANYTHING unless there is highly specific language in the Constitution protecting (or banning) a very precise issue in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I believe he may have read through the posts and mistaken Rhyfe with Strike, that was my impression anyway. But someone would have a damn hard time claiming homophobia has not made its presence known even in this thread (amongst a relatively well educated and international and metropolitan community), let alone the anti-gay marriage movement in general in our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.
Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.
Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.
I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.
That is one positive solution. I do, however believe that society has the right to decide that the male/female biological relationship is special and that it is not inherently any more discriminatory than any other restriction on marriage. All are allowed to get married as of a certain age, but it has to conform to the utilitarian biological function to at least an nominal extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Now, if we can no longer maintain this, I would rather do away with the entire concept as it no longer serves its original purpose and it would usher in a more arbitrary, metaphysical and discriminatory system. It would, without any cause, give additional tax benefits to 2 joined people. Why shouldn't single mothers get the same marriage benefit? Why should people feel the financial pull to get married at all?
2 people sharing incomes, dormitory bills, utilities, insurance plans etc already receive astronomical discounts simply by sharing. Why do they recieve additional tax breaks for it when there is no reason 2 people together should be preferred citizens? Still no one can answer why the union of two is still so important and worthy of note without the biological function to back it up.
The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.
Well here we have seperate Catholic/Non-denominational schools and its not the worst thing in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.
Part of our democratic process is judicial review and maintaining that laws are consistent with the rights outlined in the Constitution. We are not, and never have been, a straight direct democracy referendum structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
As I stated you do not have the same history of segregated legal rights in the UK as here, with the accompanying repeated findings that they don't work here. Are separate LEGAL rights accorded to Catholic vs. non-denominational weddings in the UK? Somehow I doubt that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The founding fathers were not the fundamentalist christians you seem to believe they were. Most of them were deists. And.... equal legal rights is "forcing anyone to find something moral"... how, exactly? You can go cheat on your wife with 18 different women, and that's legal. But I don't believe it's moral.Quote:
The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.
Judicial review was a relatively early addition (not firmly in the constitution, though), but it was never supposed to usurp legitimate authority from the legislatures - rather only when there was a legitimate question of constitutionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
It seems that people have started to use this exception as a tool to usurp the legislature whenever one party disagrees with the decision and cannot approach a majority. People brandish "unconstitutional" like it was "hello". If you can find this unconstitutional, you can find a graded tax code unconstitutional and on and on.
We should use the legislature to debate, write and nullify policy unless policy is in direct contradiction of the constitution and its amendments. I don't believe that marriage policy is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, so why would I support a Supreme court that overturns legitimate policy based on a foreign and personal moral code?
These are two separate arguments: Whether marriage laws are in contradiction of the Constitution (I say the are not) and whether Marriage should be extended beyond the male female relationship by the legislature (I say they should not).
It has also come to my attention that Massachusetts never enacted Gay marriage through its legislative process. I had always thought that Romney put "whether or not the state should allow marriage onto the ballot"; when in reality he put a gay marriage ban out to referendum in response to to strong arming of policy by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The rejection of the constitutional ban is not the same as the acceptance of Gay marriage in Mass.
So in a sense no U.S. State has decided that Gay marriage is something that they want by either referendum OR legislative decision. Interesting. This is truly a hijacking of the system.
Actually, a couple years ago the California legislature did pass a law making gay marriage legal. However, Arny vetoed it because he fealt that either a referendum or the Judiciary should decide this issue. Arny was against proposition 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I heard somewhere that New York State is trying to pass through gay marriage legalization. I'll have to find some more info on that.
Interesting. I'll look into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
I don't understand Arnold's position on the issue. It seems very bizarre to me.
Well if you count civil unions as marriage then they were passed by the legislature of Vermont after a court case wherein the court decided that excluding same-sex couples from obtaining the same benefits as heterosexual couples was against the state's constitution and suggested that the legislature take action. Just to be very clear the court did not enact civil unions, or force the legislature's hand, they merely recommended that the legislature take action, after heated debate the legislature did the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Of course civil unions aren't quite the same because though they do offer all of the benefits given by Vermont they are not federally recognized so no federal benefits are given to same-sex couples. I'm not entirely sure what those would be, but I imagine they would be federal tax breaks or something along those lines.
I'm not counting civil unions as marriage. That is the whole point of civil unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I'm not against those on a state by state basis.
Koga:Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
:inquisitive: I think we are saying the same thing.
My point was that the government would sanction NO marriages at all. It would only sanction and tax civil unions, they would be as simple to contract as a current "marriage," and they would be accessible to any legally competent adult.
Marriage would then be a strictly religious concern administered by and for the religion in question and marriage would be irrelevant legally.
The other discussion regarding normalcy was not directly connected. I was using "normal" strictly based on frequency of occurrence as any other definition is, as you correctly note, highly subjective.
No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Quite possibly. But the first step Europe made along these lines was, in many Western European nations, to discard organized religion more or less entirely. Lacking any reverance for religious tradition, the viewpoint you highlight is rather a simple step.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Ajax
These word games are getting ridiculous. The purpose of a car is to get you around, its defining point is that it is a means of transportation (that has certain characteristics eg 4 wheels and used on roads), not the fact that it is drawn by livestock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
The fundamental idea of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. So if all marriages were to take place in supermarkets, then without going into religious sensitivities they could still be called a marriage. Take two men though, and we have a problem.
just a small correction....we don´t have a problem....you have a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No you have a problem too you're just pretending it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
No you have a problem too you're just pretending it doesn't exist.
Well the problem is people who think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, so we now the problem is there and were trying to solve it... but you guys keep disagreeing :wink:
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Hur hur hur.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
What? Am I reading this correctly? Fathers don't get paid leave from work when they have a baby in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Quite a few countries don't have that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I see.
My valuable post is being ignored while people argue about petty issues, grammar and make stupid jokes and then wonder why the Backroom is full of hostility and stupidity. :no:
What post was ignored? :spider:
This post? I'd be quite happy to oblige.
That is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read!!1 :smash: :drama1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
A referendum can not brush aside a constitution. A constitution can deem a referendum void if it is deemed unconstitutional. A constitution establishes and protects a democracy. It serves as a check against the whims of the day. It can only be changed in accordance with special requirements, such as a qualified majority and strict procedure.
Isn't part of a consitituion's remit supposed to protect against the tyranny of the majority
:spider: :scorpio:
You're welcome to assume this is true. You are not welcome to assume everyone else agrees with you. We don't. And you addressed one of my examples (which are a mere handful of the thousands of words that have changed meaning over time). What about 'villain'? What's the fundamental meaning of the word, and how has it stayed the same from when it meant peasants to when it meant evildoers? You're making up a rule that doesn't exist, and then trying to use that rule to prevent a large group of people from enjoying the familial structure they desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Ajax
What? Seriously? I should be very happy I live in Norway then.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Under the aegis of the family medical leave act, all US employers with 50+ employees must offer up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees who can demonstrate that some medical crisis (or a new child) in their close family requires their assistance. Companies can, at their discretion, provide paid medical leave in such instances. Hospitalization etc. is usually covered (in large part) by the medical insurance one has through one's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In practice, many mothers take leave (though rarely the full 12 weeks) after downloading a new human, but very few fathers do so. They'd find themselves too far behind in their work and/or haven't built up a 3-6 month expenditures cushion as is recommended by financial planners.
Now it's just getting weird.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not the best way to attract people to the cause of equality and tolerance, methinks.
The only equal and tolerable if you agree with them bubba. Otherwise they will run you out and call you a bigot.
I'm just glad people are getting wise to the fact that the homosexual activists aren't looking to compromise.
I'm just glad people are getting wise to the fact that the homosexual activists aren't looking to compromise.
And i suppose any kind of negativety towards gay people is showing that the anti homosexual activists aren't looking to compromise... i think you'll find the gays activists are a much nicer crowd.... though this is of course bad publicity i can somewhat understand the motive, i wouldn't want to support a movement so against my gayness and im sure my gay friends would want to know that thier money is used against them in this way
Not to say that the traditional marriage supporters are anti gay but it is easy to see why they see it as this when there are anti gay elements, and the discrimination suffered throughout recent history
Right. I'm off to thank my mother for not raising me in the united states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Mmmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm trying to be serious but it's so hard when you use such colorful language. :laugh2: