The right's dangerous legal argument
Find a Conversation
The right's dangerous legal argument
| 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.

Pages
.
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kate
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>> Well currently they don't.
"Currently" most states...or even countries...DON'T have legalized "same sex marriages" so "currently" shouldn't be the barometer by which we measure this issue.
>>> Are you referring to the possibility of repealing DOMA and offering federal civil unions?
Civil Unions would be the protection of marriage, so DOMA would be unnecessary.
>>> How so? What exactly has been twisted?
Damn! I knew you'd ask for elaboration. Oh, well...here's a few...
Well, let's start off with..."Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places...Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level...If a civil union does not involve all the same rights as a marriage (which it does not at this time) then how can you consider the two to be equal?"
Ok...so "Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places...blah,blah,blah"...well, the most obvious argument is that "gay marriage" only exists in a handful of places" as well, so that argument is nullified...
...and then there's the crap about...
>>> "Domestic partnerships"...Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same.
... Same argument...not the same as "marriage" NOW, so let's dismiss it. Never mind that we could make it "national" or make it completely "equal"...well, nothing new...spurious argument because the complete facts are not in evidence...and disingenuous because I don't really think that the author is that stupid to make such ridiculous arguments without knowing that they're absurd. Maybe that's giving too much credit to liberals, but I'll go the extra mile.
>>I wasn't talking about marriage.
"And which rights do gays as a protected class
>>A gay can call you a dirty breeder if they wish all night, call them a dirty homo and you could be going to jail for a hate crime.<<
Where?
You said that civil unions offered EXACTLY the same rights as marriage. Currently they do not, so your statement was untrue.
Pages