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'm cofused. I responded to Van gogh?
I know...I suppose we should all get team t-shirts. LOL!
>>> At any rate, FMLA is equal rights, legally. Private businesses setting their own policies, as long as those policies are legal...not on the same playing field.
I see...so policies can be "legal" but "unfair?" I guess that's kind of how it is with "marriage."
>>> Bathroom furniture has nada to do with equal rights.
No, not rights...just equality and fairness. But then, this issue of gay marriage is not one of equal rights either...as all people already have the same right to marry.
>>> Check out Julian Bond's speech on youtube. There are no "special" rights being requested, although phrasing it that way seems to make it ok for some to discriminate.
I doubt that I'd be any more persuaded by the contrivances of a gay marriage advocate than you would be by the arguments of someone who opposed it.
>>> The age old institution of marriage? You mean the one where the men in the bible had multiple wives?
So you advocate polygamy? Apparently, we've decided that "progressive" forms of marriage aren't desirable in this country.
>>> The one in this country where women were sold to their husbands?
Really? I wasn't aware that we required the sale of a bride. Do tell.
>>> The one that prevented people of different races from marrying each other..claiming that same "special rights" nonsense?
That was a segregation issue. Interracial couples conform to the accepted definition of marriage.
>>> Equal is equal.
Right...and everyone gets the same rights. Enjoy.
>>> Marriage is the proper term, and it already confers the 1000+ rights/responsibilities for straight folks.
"Proper?" Who determined that? What makes it the "proper" term? And what does this "proper term" mean?
>>> In due time, this will be a non issue...gay and straight will all be married, and that marriage will be portable for all.
Portable?
>>> The time is coming fast.
Folks in CA probably felt that way last May. I guess we'll have to see how the challenge to prop 8 works out.
Of course policies can be legal and unfair.
Let me help you out...the restroom reference was an example of how life isn't fair...boo hoo. The issue of equality under the law is not an issue at all because everyone already has the SAME rights under the law.
That is like
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>>>> He's a black man, who also supports civil rights for gay people.
>>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?<<
Hmmmm, folks still refer to interracial marriage, are you saying you think they consider it reasonable to give it a term other than marriage?
>>It's a shame that you cannot be as "accepting" of other people's feelings and opinions as you demand they be of yours.<<
Yeah, didn't have a lick of sympathy for those who fought to keep African-American kids out of white schools either.
>>Or might it
Understood.
I referred to the DOMA bacause of how it describes "marriage" (i.e. excluding gay couples by limiting marriage as being exclusively between man and woman).
Does it need to be a (hands-on-hips) demand "everything/everyone" to be 'legally equal' in an all-in-one strike, and until that happens we'll wait (and keep talking here) for it to somehow happen?
Or might it
>>> Read up on marriage history. It's only recently that marriage has had squat to do with love.
Really? Then it's particularly odd that our wedding vows, virtually unchanged since the mid-1600's, specifically mention "love" as an integral component to the marriage...and the books title..."Book of Common Prayer" leads one to presume that it's contents were around for quite a long time before the book was published.
>>> Women were property, and had no rights. They were not partners or equals. That's changed, and now women get a say in whom they marry, can own property, and can divorce.
You're right, some "reading up" is certainly in order, especially concerning women's rights throughout history. Women owned land, ran businesses and even led troops into battle...and could even divorce their husbands.
>>> I personally have no issue with polygamy as long as all of the participants are willing and of legal age to consent, not forced into marriage. I can see where legally speaking, having more than one spouse could create problems with inheritance/insurance/divorce, etc......
Well, I guess that's just another issue where you and the majority of society are at odds, although with a simple will, I don't see why the issues you mentioned would be that problematic.
>>> Marriage is the proper term because it already exists, and it already comes with the rights and responsibilities.
It also comes with a definition...which is incompatible with "gay marriage." It seems quite disingenuous to afford the term "marriage" validity because it has a long established tradition and then conveniently disregard that tradition when you want to corrupt it for your own purposes.
>>> It has been proven over and over that separate but equal is a falshood.
You might not like it, but it certainly isn't a falsehood.
>>> Oh yeah...everyone can sit on the bus. But folks with the darker skin can only sit in the back.
Why is sitting in the back of the bus supposed to be a bad thing? When I went to school, sitting in the back of the bus was a "prestige" thing.
>>> Everyone can go to school...but you folks without the white skin can't go to school with the light skinned folks...
That appears to be the attitude of the folks at Albany State University...and Savannah State University...and Spelman College...and Morehouse College...and...
>>> Everyone can be married...but blacks can only marry blacks, whites can only marry whites.
Interestingly, even though it's perfectly legal for blacks and whites to inter-marry, only about 3% of white men are married to black women and only 6.5% of black men are married to white women.
>>> Any black folks that want to marry white folks are trying to destroy marriage, and are asking for special rights.
Hey, did you make that argument up all by yourself? While some folks had issues with blacks and whites becoming legally married, there was nothing in the mixing of the two races that would not conform to the traditional definition of marriage or that would require "special rights" beyond those dealing with segregation.
>>> Julian Bond is a civil rights advocate. He spoke at an HRC meeting. He's a black man, who also supports civil rights for gay people. Imagine that.
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.
>>> 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.
Everyone already has the same civil rights. Homosexuals are asking for extraordinary rights...and not only that, but they want to be given those extraordinary rights by corrupting an already long-held social institution and religious sacrament.
>>> Allowing gays to have the same marriage rights as straight folks does not take away or restrict anyone elses rights.
Except that it corrupts the definition, intention and tradition of marriage...but except for that...
>>> 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.
And those who do will be able to have civil unions.
<< 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?<<
>>> Hmmmm, folks still refer to interracial marriage, are you saying you think they consider it reasonable to give it a term other than marriage?
That would depend on why you're using that name. Calling a marriage "interracial" describes certain characteristics of the people involved and their relationship. It's a marriage because it's the union of a man and a woman, and it's interracial because the couple is of two different races...so depending on why you're using that clarifier, it could be completely valid.
<< It's a shame that you cannot be as "accepting" of other people's feelings and opinions as you demand they be of yours.<<
>>> Yeah, didn't have a lick of sympathy for those who fought to keep African-American kids out of white schools either.
And yet many choose to keep themselves out. Perhaps it was unjust to force people who didn't care to co-habitate to co-habitate. But a salient fact in the whole silly race argument that the gays put forth, is that no social tradition had to be corrupted and redefined in order to force desegregation.
>>> I don't give a rats hind end what other thing of my feelings and opinions. I do care that our nation stand up for what it claims to stand up for -- equality for all.
Wouldn't it be a shame if a majority of the people didn't give a "rat's hind end" for the feelings and opinions of the gays? I think we'd start hearing the left calling for sympathy for "other people's feelings and opinions" pretty quick.
<< 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.<<
>>> EVERYONE being forced to do what some might choose to do is most certaintly forcing.
So I guess you favor "forcing" gay marriage on to society instead of having it be "accepted?"
>>> My choice doesn't force anything on anyone as nothing in allowing same sex marriage harms in the slightest bit the marriage of those who are straight.
Well, that comment only serves to demonstrate a complete ignorance of the position of the folks who disagree with your point of view...which is not surprising, based on your heretofore expressed willingness to be open to other folks feelings and opinions.
>>> I didn't realize that a point of view that equality for everyone was important needed to be forced on any American, how sad that apparently it does.
It isn't equality that's being asked for...and the corruption of our social institutions and sacred traditions isn't something that most Americans will give up lightly.
Pages