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: 02-19-2009
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 12:10am

The can scream and demand away, but a church has no legal obligation to perform marriages for anyone and is perfectly free to discriminate when it comes to marriages.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 2:43am

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

By "we" I was naturally referring to those people who have a historical understanding and respect for the traditional institution of marriage.

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

Certainly...we've seen accusations of homophobia and fearmongering expressed on the pro-gay marriage side in order to intimidate people.

>>> There is no valid reason to prevent gay couples the same access to marriage as straight couples.

I suppose that the same could be said for corrupting a sacred social institution just because a small minority feels that shoving their personal agenda down people's throats is more important that other people's rights, beliefs or traditions. Such arrogance.

>>> History has already proven this with interracial marriages.

As far as I can recall, the "interracial marriages" you're referring to all met the traditional definition of marriage.

>>> Soon, the next generations will sit in shock as they hear that there were once those in this country that fought to add discrimination to constitutions.

Hopefully they'll be taught strong values and morals by their parents and will be strong defenders of our society and our social traditions and institutions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 2:58am

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

Not at all. That's just an example of how universally understood the definition of marriage truly was. It was only when it was attacked that it became necessary to legally define it.

>>> The same thing happened before the Loving decision. States raced to add bans against inter racial marriage. We see how that turned out.

Not really the same thing at all.

>>> And, while I respect anyone's right to have a religious ceremony, it is not a legal requirement...so "sacrament' does not come into play when discussing the legal aspects of marriage.

Actually, it does. The legal and religious are deeply intertwined for most people...and the state as well, only requiring a license to "legalize"...or "ratify" a "religious" wedding. The state accept the religious vows as a legal contract.

>>> Religion is a personal choice, and it's up to the individual, and their church, if a relgious marriage component wil be present. Since it's not legally required, it really has nothing to do with legal marriage.

As I mentioned above, the two are inexorably interconnected, and have been for millennia. Rather than cause confusion and conflict between the Church and state, it's much more sensible to create a new institution with the same legal rights for homosexuals and move on. It's sad that homosexuals can't be that sensible.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-12-2009
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 3:34am

>>> 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.

Except for the fact that they don't conform to the traditional definition of marriage. That one always kind of throws a wrench in the liberal argument, doesn't it?

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

Most marriages have religious components...but for those few who don't, the state still afforded the opportunity of a civil ceremony for those unreligious folk who wanted a "quicky"...but everyone still fit the definition of "marriage."

>>> 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. For those people for whom it isn't a point, the church is not necessary and the opinion of those who think that a church marriage is necessary is clearly not a concern.

Not at all. Most people have civil ceremonies for the expediency...not to avoid the religious aspect. In fact, most people who get "legally married" have "religious ceremonies" later...for the "real" wedding.

>>> After all the only consistent legal requirement is a license.

Speaks volumes for the importance and significance of the religious ceremony.

>>> Still waiting for you to explain how same sex marriage corrupts the institution of marriage.

Been done...ad nauseum. Why don't you explain how it doesn't...and hopefully with something more than "because I said so."

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 4:46am

Legal marriages do not require church participation.


Fearmongering won't change that.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 4:49am

There is nothing "sacred" in legal marriage.


Adding religion to ones marriage is not required.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 4:52am

So, theFIRST time

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 4:56am

The "traditional" definition of marriage was women as property of their husbands (in this country, in other cultures, there are varying definitions).


There is no real reason to stop gays from marriage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 8:53am

>>Except for the fact that they don't conform to the traditional definition of marriage. That one always kind of throws a wrench in the liberal argument, doesn't it?<<


Traditionally, women did not have equal rights, even within this nation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Mon, 03-30-2009 - 10:58am

Just because you haven't heard it yet doesn't mean they/gays won't ask for it...I've no doubt they'll


Full length fiction: worlds undone

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

Pages