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
We actually don't have to overturn DOMA to make gay marriage legal in the US as marriage is not federal, but regulated by the states.
Overturning DOMA would not make gay marriage legal.
I'd be happy to have civil unions be the term for legal marriage.
>>> I'd be happy to have civil unions be the term for legal marriage.
So you're good with "marriage" between same sex couples being called "civil unions" and "marriage" between heterosexual couples being called "marriage?" That sounds like a compromise that might be winnable.
>>> Both are equally man made contrivances.
Not from the Church's point of view.
>>> I have problems with the idea that one religion can decide that their ceremony makes a couple married while another religion cannot,
Who is preventing a church from marrying it's members?
>>> but if the marriage was legal in a civil sense, I suppose churches like mine would simply marry folks, call them married and let those who didn't like it refuse to believe it existed.
Isn't that the case with churches now? And wouldn't "civil unions" take care of the "legal" issue?
>>That's the whole point...and as far as I know, it's the only point of compromise.<<
>>> I don't quite understand why anyone should compromise, any more than it would have made sense to tell African Americans to be content with separate schools, resturants and restrooms, as a compromise.
By "anyone" I presume you mean homosexuals...and if you don't feel that homosexuals should compromise, then why should heterosexuals compromise in having their sacrament/tradition/social institution to be corrupted and redefined?
>>> Either equally has meaning....or it doesn't.
And again, the whole "rights" argument is a sham. What it's really about is a small minority trying to force a social elevation of their behavior. Tougher sell.
>>>>> Because each time you come on here criticising me and kate, who only wish that people not try to find ways to tell us what our relationships are like, you invite a response.
False accusation. I may have (and IMHO I have a right to) criticized the detected intolerance for different routes people took to reach their support for gay-marriage.
I have however
<< I'd be happy to have civil unions be the term for legal marriage.
<<< So you're good with "marriage" between same sex couples being called "civil unions" and "marriage" between heterosexual couples being called "marriage?" That sounds like a compromise that might be winnable.<<
>>> Huh? How on earth can you get that assumption from a statment that says I'd be happy to have civil unions be the term for legal marriage?
All the rights are the same...beyond that it's just a word like monogamy...or polygamy. Do you think polygamists get angry and demand that their relationships be called monogamist? Why can't "civil union" describe a same sex union while "marriage" describes a heterosexual one?
>>Not from the Church's point of view.<<
>>> So? The Chruch has no ability to grant legal rights in our country.
It's the Church's doctrine that plays a large part in the people not granting the legal "right" to gay marriage in our country, so it shouldn't be so casually dismissed.
>>Isn't that the case with churches now? And wouldn't "civil unions" take care of the "legal" issue?<<
>>> Nope, civil unions for everyone, or marriage for everyone. I don't care which, but no "separate but equal"
It's the left's inability to compromise that will likely keep them from acquiring the legal "rights" associated with "marriage."
>>By "anyone" I presume you mean homosexuals...and if you don't feel that homosexuals should compromise, then why should heterosexuals compromise in having their sacrament/tradition/social institution to be corrupted and redefined?<<
>>> No, I mean anyone.
If you mean no one should compromise then you've lost your battle.
>>> Thinking that African Americans being allowed in white schools would corrupt the schools wasn't a good enough reason to keep African Americans out of white schools, no matter how much whites who wanted them out wanted them out. I don't think anyone should have compromised then either. Equality matters.....or it does not.
I don't think that "corruption" was the primary reason that people sought segregation. However, it is interesting that, once integrated, the races frequently CHOOSE to segregate themselves. So maybe it wasn't necessarily the best idea to force them together.
>>> Is the entire issue merely the word "marriage" for you?
It appears to be for you.
>>> Civil unions do not confer the automatic 'rights' that legal marriages confer automatically.
Why? As a social manufacture, you can imbue civil unions with whatever rights you choose.
>>> Same sex couples cannot file joint federal taxes, are denied access to social security benefits, are denied immigration for their spouses, pay taxes on domestic partners health insurance, do not automatically inherit property if the spouse dies...and must pay estate taxes on the property, do not have the same right to live together in nursing homes that hetero couples have, do not automatically get pension benefits, do not have their marriage recognized in all other states like straight couples do, an on and on and on.
The point of civil unions would be to confer those rights to same sex couples. Problem solved.
>>> The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) was asked by congressional members to compile a list of U.S. federal laws which are affected by marital status. The results of their first study was completed on January 31, 1997. The GAO subsequently did a second search for the federal laws that are triggered by legal marriage. In December 31, 2003, it identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.
Great...make a list and present it to your Congressman. Problem solved.
>>> Seperate is not equal
That's the way it is in life. An 18 year old can join the military, but can't drive a car or legally get a drink in my state. In my company, a woman having a child gets two months leave...a man gets two weeks. Women frequently have chairs or sofas in their restrooms. Men? Nope. Life is unfair.
Civil unions ALREADY exist.
They do not confer the same rights as marriage.
Women frequently have chairs or sofas in their restrooms.
If men want to have babies and breast feed their children in the bathroom because society looks askance at them doing it in public, please, have at it....you can have all the chairs or couches you need.
Pages