The right's dangerous legal argument

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
The right's dangerous legal argument
1537
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.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 7:46am

Actually, we don't have a precedent of "separate but equal".

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:22am

Yes, it is about human rights.


And given that seperate but not equal has not worked in the past, it's silly to expend so much time trying to create something "close' when we already have an easy means to make civil rights equal.


What's in a name?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:27am

LOL.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:29am

Marriage, as a legal construct, is NOT a sacrament.


Providing equal access to civil rights does nothing to churches rights, or religious tradition, since no one is required to be married in a church--and no church is ever forced to perform a wedding.


Nice try.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:31am

And yet, some are calling for it again.


One would think we'd learn.


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:48am

>>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

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:53am

Not to mention, that even in the states where the term is marriage--the marriage for gays does not come with all of the same rights as the marriage for straight folks.


I don't think it will be much longer before this gets dealt with on a federal level, and then people will get over their need to hold onto "marriage" like they alone own it...


My grandkids, when they're born, will express disbelief that this country was every so backwards as to prevent equality to it's gay citizens.


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 8:54am

>>Actually, we don't have a precedent of "separate but equal".

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 9:05am

>>Not to mention, that even in the states where the term is marriage--the marriage for gays does not come with all of the same rights as the marriage for straight folks.<<


Because that marriage isn't recognized in other states, as a straight marriage performed by the same official on the same license is, and because the federal rights that come with staight marriage don't come with gay marriage??

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 9:14am

The marriages are valid in those states only, (some other states will recognize them, but because they are not recognized on the federal level, they aren't portable like straight marriages are).


The gay couples cannot file joint federal taxes,

Pages