The right's dangerous legal argument

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
The right's dangerous legal argument
1537
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:46pm

Appearing for the supporters of Prop 8, Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor, said the people hold the right to modify the state constitution by adding or subtracting protections for civil rights.


Court appears ready to uphold Prop. 8



Full length fiction: worlds undone


"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson


"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 12:32pm

Nah...lies about rates of divorce were tossed into a discussion about marriage to add some additional fearmongering/distortions, etc.


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 3:44pm

>>> I see that MOST posters would support 'the glbt-community' to gain access to the exact same legal rights that automatically come with "marriage", as long as they don't want/demand to use the word "marriage"...On 'the other side' the focus is set on "it's not truly equal unless it will be called "marriage"....

That seems to be the gist of it...although I'm not completely certain that all conservatives, especially religious ones, support civil unions, but enough probably do to make it a viable solution.

>>> Why do you all get so very entrenched in your individual reasons for support, and quibble eternally about "what to call it"???

Because "marriage" is a many millennia-old institution, entrenched in religious teaching and belief. It IS something quite particular, sanctified by God, with particular intent and meaning. The proposition of "gay marriage," however is something quite new and so it stands to reason that a new designation should be created for it, rather than desecrating an ancient tradition.

>>> Remember/keep in mind that you, as long as you choose to do so, you are collectively (as a society) responsible for "postponing" current urgent legal issues for e.g. those who are NOW (as we type) sitting at the bedside of their beloved, legally unable to make crucial decisions re their treatment?

Well...um...that's crap. First of all, a living will, power of attorney, blah, blah, blah will take care of such issues if they are of sufficient import. Second, if you want to portion "blame" for the situation the person "sitting at the bedside of their beloved" is experiencing, then shine your light on the gay community. If their impassioned cries about "rights" weren't lies, they could press for, and likely get, legal parity in the form of civil unions...but they refuse and, instead, CHOOSE to cruelly leave that poor person "sitting at the bedside of their beloved," which is even more egregious as "s/he" is one of "their own."

>>> Wouldn't it therefore be most important to focus on gay couples gaining access to the exact same legal rights that automatically come with "marriage" ASAP, and call it e.g. "fiets" for the time being?

Ask them. They're the ones who refuse compromise and dismiss "civil unions," even though it would give them legal equality. But the reality is, is that it isn't about "rights" for the militant gay community.

>>> Looking back, how long did your society take to leave out the addition of "interracial" from "interracial marriage"? Did anyone ever state they are "interracial married to X"?

LOL! In most cases, all one had to do was look to figure it out. But the issue with "interracial" marriage had to do with segregation...the couple was always "a man and a woman" and so fit the traditional definition of marriage. That's not the case with gay couples.

>>> Get practical FGS!!?

FGS? Kind of funny when discussing gay "marriage."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-26-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:05pm

The right's dangerous legal argument???


What about the left putting an alien usuper into the White House?


He is NOT going to get away with it!





BORN IN THE USA?
Supreme Court asked to cooperate with FBI
Attorney investigating Obama's eligibility reports cyber attacks




Posted: April 04, 2009
12:10 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
©
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:10pm
Two cats, even if they're different colors, are still cats.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:13pm
I have to hit the pitches served...it's tough when all that comes across the plate are softballs from rookies. LOL!
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:16pm

>>> Actually, they are married because they meet the legal criteria/definition for being married in their states and countries.

Actually, they're married because the definition and tradition of marriage were corrupted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:17pm
A marxist, Muslim, gay alien.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:41pm

Exactly.


And a civil union, and a marriage are not the same thing in this country.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 4:46pm
What rights are lacking in a 'civil union'? Can't that be fixed?
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Sat, 04-04-2009 - 5:47pm

>>> Exactly.

LOL! The "exactly" is that a "gay union" DOESN'T conform to the traditional definition of "marriage." Thanks.

>>> And a civil union, and a marriage are not the same thing in this country. Civil unions do NOT come with the same rights as marriages.

Wrong again. One city might have "jay walking" laws and another has "illegal pedestrian crossing" laws...but they are, in fact, the same thing. If it's a matter of "rights" the gays should be happy to have civil unions...but we really know that's not their real agenda, don't we?

>>> Seperate but equal is not acceptable.

Sorry...but the cat can't be a fish just because it wants to.

Pages