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: 02-12-2009
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 11:58pm

>>> A religious ceremony is optional. It is not required for legal marriage. Therefore, LEGAL marriage is not a sacrament, nor does it require any religious ceremoney.

A civil ceremony is also optional...and it not required for legal marriage. The marriage ceremony chosen by many is, indeed, a sacrament.

>>> I'm not happy to accept civil unions, unless that will be the term used for all. Why change the term? Marriage already exists as the term for the LEGAL status. No one owns the term. There's no need for different terms. One term already provides the legal status.

Marriage is defined as the union of "a man and a woman"...why change the term? There's no need to redefine the term and cause confusion and strife between the religious and legal concept of marriage when you can simply use an already well known phrase like "civil unions" to describe this "new" institution.

>>> Soon enough, both gay and straight folks will be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and it will be called marriage for all.

Some folks in California probably felt the same way last May.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 11:59pm
There's always hope.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 12:07am

Legal marriage has legal reqirements.


In order to be legal, no marriage has religious requirements.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 2:10am

>>> Exactly. And a civil union is not a marriage,

I know...a "marriage" is "the union between a man and a woman."

>>> and calling it "the same" as a marriage does not make it so, anymore than calling a cat a dog, makes a cat a dog!

We don't call it "the same"...we understand that gay "marriage" is quite different from the true tradition, intent and definition of marriage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 2:43am

>>> Legal marriage has legal reqirements.

The only consistent requirement is a license.

>>> In order to be legal, no marriage has religious requirements.

Then you won't be married in the eyes of the church...which is the point for most people.

>>> Anyone who wishes to add religious/sacramental portions to their legal requirements is free to do so.

Right...no problem there.

>>> But as a legal entity, religion has no place dictating the requirements.

It doesn't. The state requires a license and so a license is required and the church is not offended.

>>> This is a secular nation, and marriage is a secular right.

Actually, we're not a secular nation...but sure, everyone can avail themselves of the right to marry. They just don't have the right to change the definition of marriage to suit their particular desires.

>>> Because we, as a nation, respect people who wish to also follow thier chosen religious beliefs, religion can play a role if the parties involved choose that.

And it most frequently does...but we, as a nation, also understand that we are a diverse people with divergent practices, and so we have created a new institution called "civil unions" to accommodate those who wish to engage in relationships that do not conform to the universally understood meaning of marriage.

>>> There is no need to invent a new, separate and not equal term. Marriage already exists.

It is a term with an explicit understanding that, unfortunately, doesn't not include same-sex couples, leaving us with two choices...redefine marriage, causing unnecessary confusion and conflict between the legal and religious understanding of the term, or simply create a new, but legally identical institution called "civil unions."

>>> We need only complete the removal of discrimmination, just as we did decades ago for interacial couples.

The "discrimination" that occurred decades ago was strictly social and didn't require opposing the Church and redefining marriage.

>>> Before we know it the US Supreme Court will deal with this, just as they did previously.

It will be interesting to see if they can rationalize voiding the people's right to amend their own constitution. Personally, I don't think they will.

>>> Have a sweet night, I'm off to bed.

Night.

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

No, "we" don't recognize any such thing.


Homophobia, greed, fearmongering...those are present.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 8:32am

By adding amendments to restrict gays from marriage (since the state constitutions did not prohibit gays from marrying before) rights have been restricted.


The same thing happened before the Loving decision.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-12-2009
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 9:37am
Chrissy
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 10:11am
>>> Legal marriage has legal reqirements.

The only consistent requirement is a license.<<


Indeed, making marriage between same sex couples perfectly within the legal framework of marriage.


>>> In order to be legal, no marriage has religious requirements.


Then you won't be married in the eyes of the church...which is the point for most people.<<


And for those people for whom it is the point, the church is an option.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2007
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 11:37pm

No one has ever asked that churches be forced to perform gay marriages.








Churches already decide which marriages to perform..that would not change.

Pages