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
"Where?
They already DON'T confer the same rights.
Where has someone been convicted on a hate crime charge
>>> You said that civil unions offered EXACTLY the same rights as marriage. Currently they do not, so your statement was untrue.
Currently neither does "gay marriage," which renders your point moot. The FACT is that civil unions, a socio-legal contrivance, CAN be imbued with EXACTLY the same legal rights that marriage confers.
Well then say that civil unions CAN offer the same rights from the get-go rather than claiming that they offer the EXACT same rights as marriage which implies that you mean that they currently offer the exact same rights as marriage.
I don't know any militant gays.
We would not stand in the way of civil union law, but so long as the option exists, we will push for marriage.
Thereafter - after passage of a civil union law - we will continue to push for full marriage rights.
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
>>> I don't know any militant gays.
Ok.
>>> "Militant gays" is a fearmongering term, used to deflect from a real discourse regarding equal rights.
But you (and others) have already proven that the whole "gay marriage" issue is not about equal rights.
>>> Equality is being pursued.
No...it's not.
>>> Marriage already has all the components in place. No need to recreate anything, just remove the discrimination.
And redefine it...no thanks. Not necessary to cause confusion and conflict when we can just create a parallel civil institution that affords all the same rights. It's about rights, right?
>>> This is so much like the prior bigotry in this country. It was wrong then, it's still wrong.
It's nothing like that at all. Homosexuals have precisely the same rights as everyone else does...and even a few considerations more.
>>> WHY CAN'T YOU (fill in the group being denied rights) people just sit in the back of the bus and behave? Why do you have to be so uppity and demand equal?
Er..."rights?" It's about "rights"...right?
Pages