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
I'd agree overturning DOMA would be a huge step, but still don't agree that there should be any step which grants different ways to access the same legal rights for gay and straight couples.
So it seems reasonable to you that when my pastor performed my marriage to my husband, that should suffice for legal rights, but had I married a woman that exact same marriage ceremony should not have sufficed for legal rights?
"That NOW national board is elected by the membership, not hired."
LOL
You maybe have the last list of those on the ballot?
So if my minister marries me and my husband, that ceremony should count as a legal ceremony, but if my minister performs the exact same ceremony for a gay couple it should not count as the legal ceremony and they should need to go do some other sort of ceremony to have their marriage count?
>>> Except that civil unions don't provide equal access to civic institutions.
Which ones?<<
How about social security.
>>> Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education
This is relevant how?<<
separate but equal isn't.
Hey, nice picture.
>>You maybe have the last list of those on the ballot?
>>Where does this come from?<<
you answered your own question:
>>Without them (the bill of rights),
Maybe I wasn't clear.
This is how I see it happen:
1. Overturn the DOMA.
Gay couples who don't wish to have a church wedding, will have access to the exact same legal rights as trad. couples.
2. Give churches like yours (since they already perform gay-marriages) the right to include the civic part for a gay-marriage, like they already do for trad. marriages.
No need to change what
Ah, yes I see what you are saying now.
I think there may still be come confusion though.
A church wedding is NOT a requirement for a marriage in the US.
Pages