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
>>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.<<
Heretofor every use of
My guys (I've got three, two still at home)are not the best with remembering to take out the trash either...but with reminders, they get there. Most times. lol.
>>> As for maternity leave, in a majority of cases the woman "having a child" is actually giving birth and needs time to physically recover.
<>
She doesn't necessarily need anyone there to help take care of her. And as for your
>>> LOL. One can try to ignore the history, but that doesn't make it go away.
Why would you imagine history would go away?
>>> The same ridiculous arguments that were used to try to prevent black and white people from marrying each other are now being used to keep gays from marrying each other.
No, not even close.
>>> And fortunately, this country does not require that one be in the majority to have equal access.
No...just to amend the constitution.
>>> This will be a non-issue soon.
I'm sure many folks in CA felt that last May way too.
>>> Marriage, as a legal construct, is NOT a sacrament.
There are a lot of Catholics and orthodox Christians who would disagree with you.
>>> 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.
Well, except that it redefines the word, which redefines the institution and the sacrament.
>>> Nice try.
Thanks. It was fun to see it work.
>>> Full MARRIAGE will soon be available to same sex couple, nation wide.
I'm sure that many folks in CA felt that was last May too.
>>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.<<
>>> Heretofor every use of the term "gay marriage" on this board has been because "gay" describes certain characteristics of the people involved and their relationship, not because someone is attempting to "define it and make it distinct from other kinds of marriage".
"Gay" is appropriate because it clarifies that the two people involved are of the same sex...but because the union of a same sex couple doesn't conform to the term "marriage," the use of "marriage" is inappropriate.
>>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.<<
>>> Certainly. Choice is wonderful. The choice to exclude oneself and the choice to exclude others however, are not remotely close to the same thing.
Everyone has the same right to "marriage."
>>> And gay marriage corrupts exactly nothing.
Except marriage. Civil unions corrupt exactly nothing...that sounds like a reasonable compromise.
>>So I guess you favor "forcing" gay marriage on to society instead of having it be "accepted?"<<
>>> I will ALWAYS be in favor of "forcing" equality on those in our society who wish for inequality.
I suppose then, you understand that there will ALWAYS be those who will defend their traditions and institutions against such attacks.
>>> Fortunately I live in a nation founded on equality, even if we don't always live up to our best principles.
Right...equal rights for all...not extraordinary rights for a few at the expense of others.
>>> I'm always thrilled when the people remember the truths our founding fathers held to be self-evident.
And endowed by their creator...of which "marriage" was not enumerated. And, as anyone familiar with that phrase knows, our founding fathers were a little sketchy on the "created equal" bit.
>>> And when the people fall short, I'm thrilled when our elected officials or our judges help us get back on track toward living up to our principles.
Let's hope the courts are consistent and uphold the people's right to amend their own constitution. Once California paves the way, I'm sure many other states will follow suit.
>>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.<<
>>> Yeah, that is what folks who didn't want African-Americans let in "their" schools said too.
No, they didn't.
>>> Do feel free to explain how marriage is corrupted by allowing same sex couples to marry. I know you've been asked, and I've missed where you've explained this -- your main objection.
Changing the definition from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of whoever" tends to be somewhat corrupting of the institution and it's intent.
lmao, if you cannot refute, just say 'it isn't like that at all'.
Yeah, it is like that.
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