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: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 1:18am

>>> There is nothing "sacred" in legal marriage.

Sure there is. For most people, the legal and religious aspects of marriage are intertwined into a single institution.

>>> Adding religion to ones marriage is not required. One is free to do so, no matter who can/cannot get married.

Right...but most people do.

>>> Screams of "destroying the sanctity of marriage, breaking tradition, etc" were heard when the states ran to ban inter racial marriages.

I don't recall...but one of the "screams" not being heard was that some folks were trying to redefine marriage.

>>> The next generations are already being taugh values.

That doesn't seem apparent with the rampant liberalism ruining our society.

>>> That's why the younger generations are FOR equality.

The younger generation isn't thinking about getting married. When they do, and when they start raising families, their priorities often change.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 1:25am

>>Sure there is. For most people, the legal and religious aspects of marriage are intertwined into a single institution.<<


Entirely their option, but that doesn't change the fact that nothing is "sacred" about legal marriage -- and that the "sacredness" is an optional add-on.


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 1:31am

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

It's odd then that men were expected to take vows to "love" their property...and that "property" took a vow to "love" her owner. Hmmm...

>>> There is no real reason to stop gays from marriage.

I agree. Let them choose a partner of the opposite sex and have at it.

>>> Claims of "it will destroy marriage' with no proof to back them up...well they fall flat.

The ability to read and comprehend the definition is all the proof necessary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2007
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 1:49am

If you really want to "defend" marriage, outlaw divorce and affairs.


Lame argument.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 2:20am

>>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. Yet we managed to understand that the concept of equality trumped tradition.

Institutions weren't redefined to allow those rights. One thing did not suddenly become something else...they simply said "yes you can."

>>> This nation is one of laws, as you've pointed out the ONLY thing keeping same sex marriage from being legal is that folks don't like their traditions changed. Folks never do.

Aah...a grasp of the opposition...if not respect for their position.

>>> Folks get over it when they have to make that change just as they did when women were given property rights, or the right to vote in this nation.

I hope the gay community were as possessed of the ability to "get over it" when Prop 8 was passed as you expect the defenders of marriage to be.

>>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."<<

>>> And as having a religious component to ones marriage is entirely and complete irrelevant to ones marriage being legal the concerns of religious institutions concerning marriage should be with those folks whose marriage the representatives of that institution have been asked to perform.

The state recognizes the legality of the religious ceremony and holds the vows to be a legal contract.

>>> Its perfectly reasonable for Father Michael to tell Sam and Bill that he cannot perform their marriage as it violates the Churches views of marriage as a sacrament. Its entirely unreasonable for Father Michael to tell Sam and Bill that no other non=Catholic (for the sake of the example) officient can perform their marriage because it violates the Catholic Church's views that marriage is a sacrament.

I haven't heard Father Michael dictating who can and cannot perform a marriage. What I did see was a majority of the people support a constitutional amendment to legally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

>>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.<<

>>> And? No church need perform any wedding ceremony it does not wish to perform. Therefore the view of churches as to whose wedding should be legal are entirely irrelevent. They are perfectly within their purview to wish to control which marriages they perform or they consider a sacrament, but not at all within their purview to seek to prevent legal marriage or to prevent other churches who do not have a problem with performing same sex marriage from performing them.

Is the Church preventing other churches from marrying people? How do they do that?

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

>>> Hasn't been done once....unless, of course, you are using the term "corrupt" to mean " to alter from the original" in which case yes, it will change marriage from being an institution restricted to heterosexuals. In which case, interrracial marriage "corrupted" marriage too, as did allowing couples to choose their own partners for marriage.

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Interracial couples meet that criteria, homosexuals do not.

>>> If you mean "corrupt" in any negative sense you've failed to show any such thing, and you have MA sitting there with 4.5 years of "corruption", feel free to present your evidence.

The existence of non-conforming "unions" corrupts all definitions of marriage. "Sinful" unions further denigrate the religious aspects of marriage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 2:31am

>>> So, theFIRST time bans were put in place, it was to prevent blacks from marrying whites. States ran to "protect the sanctity of marriage".

You have a link for that quote?

>>> Inter racial marriage was "attacking marriage?

It was attacking the separation of the races, not marriage...which was kind of silly since the races had been mixing for hundreds of years.

>>> it was wrong then, it's wrong now.

You're right...which is why that "wrong" was "righted" several decades ago.

>>> You can say over and over that religion and marriage are tied together. That is only true for those who WANT religion in their marriages.

The definition of marriage is the definition for all people..."a man and a woman."

>>> The good news is, that doesn't change when discrimmination ends. Those who want their marriage to be relgious can still choose that.

Sounds great. And when a gay couple wants to "legalize" their relationship, they can jot down to City Hall and get a "civil union." I'm glad we could finally work this out. ; )

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2007
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 2:59am

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: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 3:09am

>>> She doesn't necessarily need anyone there to help take care of her.

<>

>>> Apparently you've never given birth either vaginally or by cesarean.

That's true.

>>> Personally I had a vaginal delivery and went back to work two weeks after my first child was born but I was an in-home nanny and my employer was very understanding. I brought my son with me so that I was able to breastfeed him throughout the day and I was able to leave when necessary to go for doctor's appts (both mine and the baby's). Not all employers would be so understanding which is why maternity leave is so important.

So breast feeding and infant care is only important for the first two months of a baby's life?

>>> Given your stand on working mothers, I'm surprised that you feel this leave is unnecessary. In previous posts you have stressed the need for the mother to be with her children but it seems like you believe that if she should choose to work (or has to work due to financial reasons) then she should have to go back to work immediately. Where's the balance? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

If it's best for a mother to be at home with her children then "leave" is a moot point, isn't it?

>>> And btw, would you go back to work immediately after major surgery or with stitches in very delicate places? And how would you get to work if you've been told you can't drive during the recovery period (possibly due to the use of pain medication)?

Other women here have said that the husband is not needed at home to help care for the woman AND the child, because the woman is capable of taking care of both herself. If the woman is so capable...apparently within two weeks, if your situation is a common example, so why the need for two months leave?

>>> And as for your concerns about the superiority of the women's room, I would suggest either talking to your office supervisors if it bothers you that much or else take your own advice and call your Congressman.

<>

>>> Then why suggest that I call my Congressman regarding the wait in women's rooms? It was your own advice, if you believe it's so useless than why did you suggest it? Btw, talking to your office supervisors is still an option. Let me know how it goes.

Do you think that a Congressman is the proper source for every problem? LOL!

>>> Or you could always consider gender re-assignment surgery. Good luck with whichever route you choose to go.

<>

>>> Apparently God chose me to be among the lucky ones who get to have comfy seating in restrooms. No surgery was necessary.

Like I said...life is unfair.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2007
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 3:22am

Legal marriages do not require church participation.


Fearmongering won't change that.


I know that...you missed the point as well as the other poster.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2007
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 3:57am

Actually, no. But then, we've explained that to you before.


I just plain don't believe you no matter how much you explain, object, etc.

Pages