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: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:37pm

Nope.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:38pm

fearmongering does not change reality.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:40pm

Odd...when Barry was elected, the opinion of "most people" seemed to have more validity for you.


Under our system, those with the most electoral votes win, and most often the popular vote is in line, though we know there are exceptions.


It does not mean the most qualified won, it means the one most popular amongst those voting prevailed.


We aren't talking on elections, we are talking about an issue, and history shows us popular opinion can be on the wrong side of an issue.


The state only recognized the legality of marriage, but it also finds the religious bonds and vows to be legally binding.


And this is discrimination, because churches that wish their marriage of same sex couples to be legally binding are summarily ignored and shouted down by those who wish to perpetuate discrimination.



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

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:40pm

I didn't miss the point.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:41pm

The same arguments were used to keep blacks and whites from marrying, right down to what "god" wants.


It was wrong then, and it's still wrong.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:43pm

As we all are, other churches are free to make their own

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:46pm

How "most people" choose to view their own religion, or their own marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage, and with what constitutes a legal marriage.


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 4:49pm

The state only recognized the legality of marriage, but it also finds the religious bonds and vows to be legally binding.


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 5:47pm

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

>>> Which is exactly what happened in MA, and in CT and in CA for a time --- nothing redefined the instition staight people entered into, same sex couples were simply told "yes you can". Neither had anything about marriage changed in those states, or those nations, in which same sex couples can marry.

I'm afraid not. Same sex couples do not conform to the definition of marriage unless you redefine the institution. That hasn't been formally done in MA and CT, it was just a presumed result of the court action...but the definition of marriage is being legally clarified constitutionally in CA so that no corruption can occur.

>>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.<<

>>> Oh, I have no problem understanding that people don't like anything to be different. The folks who had to let those black kids come to school with their white kids had the same problem, they did NOT want that change to occur.

And the folks who were against Prop 8 did NOT want that change to occur. But unlike the case with marriage, "going to school" didn't have to be redefined in order for those black kids to attend.

>>> Even though that change did not make anything different about their own children's education, just allowed it to be available to others.

Those "black kids" that were bussed in were already attending school...was there some problem with the education they were receiving? And if no change occurred, then why are predominantly black schools' literacy and testing rates so much lower across the board?

>>> The folks who didn't want interracial marriage had the same problem, the did NOT want that change to occur. Even though that change did not make anything different about same race marriages, just allowed marriage to be available to others.

Interracial couples conform to the traditional definition of marriage.

>>> Yet "I don't want them to" is hardly a compelling reason for the nation or a state within the nation not to grant equal civil rights.

I agree...which is why everyone has the same civil rights in this country.

>>> Its a dandy reason for a church not to marry someong though, and churches have that right -- for any couple but not for a nation, or a state. And no, I don't respect "I want them to have different rights than I have" as legal argument.

Gays have precisely the same rights as everyone else.

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

>>> Nope the state holds singing the piece of paper and having it witnessed to be the legal contract. Nothing one says in ones ceremony has any legal standing. And as having a member of the clergy sign the paper as officiant is merely one of the many ways someone can marry, no need for anyone who does not wish a relgious ceremony to have one.

The application for a license simply states that these two people want to get married. The license issued simply states that they are. The vows are the binding aspect of the contract, whether civil or religious...and the state recognizes the religious vows as legally binding.

>>> Therefore the views of a church should quite simply be reserved to having the ability to tell couples they cannot marry in that church, not telling them their cannot legally marry.

The Church doesn't have the authority to tell someone they cannot legally marry, so the point is moot.

>>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.<<

>>> Last fall, in California, ministers and priests were most certainly preaching that other ministers should not be allowed to perform marriages those churches thought worth of sanctifying because the legal right to marry should be removed from same sex couples.

Priests and ministers are certainly allowed to speak to the transgressions of other preachers and ministers of their respective faiths...but beyond each individual religion, they have little authority...but they have every right to express their opinion.

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

>>> Ah, so, as I suspected, the use of "corrupt" is simply a fun little semantic game.

Not at all. Same sex "marriage" would corrupt the institution of marriage by every understanding of the word "corrupt."

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

>>> So the couple next door committing adultry denigrates the resligious aspect of your marriage.

They denigrate their own marriage by sinning and violating their vows.

>>> Yet someone I don't see the churches trying to ban civil divorce.

It's not their purview.

>>> They seem fully able to decide that if their church finds divorce unacceptable then can simply tell couples their religous marriage is not ended by divorce, only by further religious division.

And?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Tue, 03-31-2009 - 6:05pm

<>

>>> Of course not, but there are certainly more appointments and such immediately following birth. And breastfeeding takes time for both mother and baby to learn. It may be natural but it doesn't always come naturally. And even if nursing does go smoothly, a newborn nurses A LOT. It's best for the mother to breastfeed as often as possible to help build her milk supply. A breast pump is not nearly as effective as an infant. And for those women who choose not to or can't breastfeed, they still have the painful issue of engorgement to deal with. Plus of course, there's still the issue of physically recovering from the birth.

It's nice that all of these issues and difficulties are conveniently resolved just as the maternity leave runs out.

<>

>>> Not really. It's still in the best interest of both the baby and the mother.

For the mother to work and leave the baby with a stranger?

<>

>>> My situation may not be a common example. Not to mention that my situation actually involved necessary surgery two months after the baby was born which required me to miss work at that point. The fact is, all births are different. No one knows what they specifically would experience physically after birth. Some women tear and require major stitches, others do not. Some suffer some degree of pelvic floor prolapse, some do not. Some women experience incontinence, even fecal incontinence, after birth, others do not. And of course, some women require the major surgery of a c-section and the recovery that goes along with it, and others do not. Every single birth is different (even when it's the same woman giving birth) but unfortunately businesses don't have personalized maternity leave. Most have a standard leave (6 weeks for vaginal delivery, 8 weeks for c-section) that is based on the recommendation of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Of course you are free to take up this issue with your office supervisors as well if you really find it to be unfair.

But others have told me that having the husband at home is unnecessary and that the woman was capable of taking care of herself AND the baby without any assistance. From what you're describing, that doesn't appear to be the case.

<>

>>> No I do not and as I said, YOU suggested it. At least I believe it was you, it's hard to keep track of the name changes. Either way, I was not the one to suggest it for "every problem".

Just this one, huh?

<>

>>> I personally think that there's a balance. Yes there are some areas where life may seem unfair for certain individuals but there may be others areas that make up for it.

Like civil unions for gay couples.

>>> Are you unhappy being a man?

Not at all...especially considering the alternatives.

>>> Do you really think it's that unfair?

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "unfair." it's not like we were actually given a choice.

>>> I'm sure there are other areas of your life that make you glad to be a man.

Everyday.

Pages