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
>>> Civil unions ALREADY exist. They do not confer the same rights as marriage. They are NOT equal.
They're a social and legal contrivance...they COULD be made to confer identical legal rights. Call your Congressman.
>>> FMLA is Federal, and gender is not attached.
Ok...and? I suppose I should have clarified..."with pay."
>>> There is no state that does not allow an 18 year old to drive...where did you come up with that?
My bad.
>>> But..the right to drive carries with you. So, if you are licensed in one state to drive, others recognise that license EVEN IF their driving age is different. The same does not apply for marriages for same sex couples.
And you can legally drink in one state, but that right does not follow you to another state. I think the point was disparity...which is an unfortunate fact of life.
>>> I'm really not sure what chairs in restrooms have to do with equality in the law?
Just that not everything is fair...and sometimes you just have to get over it.
>>> Of course life isn't fair. But we are talking about equal rights under the law. Equality is not negotiable.
Actually, we're not. Equal rights would be everyone sharing the same right...which is NOT what proponents of gay marriage are asking for. They want extraordinary rights...rights hitherto NOT granted or accepted or understood...they want to redefine an ages-old institution and to force social parity of their behavior even though it flies in the face of the intention and tradition of that institution.
>>> 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.
So the sofas in the restroom of office buildings are for breast-feeding women?
If you wish furniture in mens rooms, toss it in the suggestion box.
Oh, and a nice, decorative box of tissues, along with a few bottles of lavender hand wash - with ribbons around the neck, and a basket of potpourri.
That should make all the guys feel at home as the whiz.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
That would be my opinion.
>>> What does joining the military or driving a car have to do with "separate is not equal"?
It has everything to do with separate but not equal. Obviously an 18 year old is legally an adult...and yet they do not have the same "rights" as all other adults. It's a big boo hoo moment that life isn't always fair, legally or otherwise.
>>> As for maternity leave, in a majority of cases the woman "having a child" is actually giving birth and needs time to physically recover.
And who's there to help take care of her and the baby if the husband is required to return to work or take leave with lesser or no pay? Hmmm...
>>> And yes, some public places are nice enough to offer a chair or a sofa in the women's restroom but like other posters have pointed out, it is the women who breastfeed and often need a place to do so privately.
As I mentioned, there are sofas in the women's restrooms in our office building...with nary a breast-feeding woman in sight. Hmmm...
>>>Not to mention the fact that there rarely is a wait involved for the men's room but there quite often is a wait in the women's room.
Aah...so it's a staging area. But wouldn't it just be smarter to add more toilets rather than accommodate the wait?
>>> Given the extra time usually involved for a woman to use the bathroom, shouldn't women's rooms be larger and have more stalls than men's rooms? Consider the lack of a chair or sofa a trade-off for less wait time.
Get's my vote...call your Congressman.
I'm cofused.
Life will never be fair.
But this discussion isn't about the fairness of bathrooms...it's about equal access to civil rights.
>>> Because separate but equal isn't. Once you call one marriage by a differnt term you open the door to treating it differently as well.
People call it "gay marriage"...which is obviously an attempt to define it and make it distinct from other kinds of "marriage"...so what's the difference if you call "gay marriages" civil unions and heterosexual marriages "marriages?"
>>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.<<
>>> It SHOULD be dismissed without consideration. That is it not so dismissed is concerning, but the invasion of church into the secular affairs of the state has always been troubling for me.
It's a shame that you cannot be as "accepting" of other people's feelings and opinions as you demand they be of yours.
>>If you mean no one should compromise then you've lost your battle.<<
>>> Nope. MA and CT and quite possible NH all show that the battle can be won without turning one marriage into something that is able to be dismissed as not behing a "real" marriage by calling it out as different.
And CA, a very liberal state demonstrated something very different. It will be interesting to see how other states respond if the constitutional amendment is upheld.
>>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.<<
>>> If you don't understand the difference between choosing to segregate onself and being made to do so, there isn't much point in continuing this line of discussion.
Being "forced" to do something that you would "choose" to do isn't really "forcing," now is it? But it's nice to know that "choice" is important to you...but apparently not important enough to prevent you from trying to force your point of view on others, with no regard to their opinion or feelings. Very hypocritical.
>>It appears to be for you.<<
>>> Is there a reason you do not wish to answer the question?
Considering the breadth of the discussion that’s been offered, it’s a rather ridiculous question for a liberal to ask…especially when it’s clearly all about the “word” to them.
People can have all the feelings they want to...no worries.
But, when their 'feelings' result in denying equal access to civil rights, then it's not just about their feelings, it's about the rights of others.
Allowing gays to have the same marriage rights as straight folks does not take away or restrict anyone elses rights.
Once gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and it will be, then those who do not want to marry someone of their same gender will not be forced to do so.
Pages