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
LOL! Why are liberals always so drastic? Give us a call when gays are being enslaved or exterminated or segregated.
I see... so other forms of discrimination, where say... people are bullied and denied rights is kewl with you?
Discrimination is insidious, and to call me out for being 'so drastic' belittles the fact that lgbt folk do die, from murder to suicide due to the impact of society upon us.
I care that that happens.
Only as much as the cat is oppressed because it wants to be called a dog...and yet it remains a cat. It's frustrated...but not oppressed.
^^^worst analogy of all time^^^
What are they?
First, polygamy is almost exclusively with a man as head of household, with several wives. If allowed it would set women's rights back decades. When I see an equal number of women with multiple husbands, come back and we will talk.
Secondly, the legalities of divorce are complex enough in binary partnerings. When you add a third, fourth, or even a fifth person into the mix, it would be nigh impossible to sort.
Third, the impact upon children, especially in a divorce scenario.
None of these issues exist with same sex marriage.
What you do get with same sex marriage are families being recognised legally.
Recourse when discriminated against.
Partners who are not shunted aside when their parnter is hospitalised.
Legal parenting for both partners.
Access to health care.
Legal immigration of partners.
A fading away of this issue, and we all can go out and live our lives.
A better, less divisive society.
Just the ever so simple fact that these unions don't meet the minimum criteria to be called "marriage."
And these are?
Let me guess... sex where kidlets result. Older folks and those who will not have children need not apply.
Um... opposite bits, because you know, one of each is always nice.
Funny thing is... gay folk treat marriage with more respect than many hetero folk do, go fiture.
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
Other posters have alread pointed out to you why it is not equal. They have even offered analogies to help simplify it. I'm not sure what more you want. I think that you seem to believe you have come up with a "gotcha" type of argument but your reasoning just doesn't apply. If a hetero couple wanted to marry one another than they would no longer be seen as a hetero couple, they would be a same sex couple, whether or not they are sexually active with one another.
We discriminate in everything we do.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
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
>>Most people view marriage as a single institution who's legality is not distinctly different from it's sanctity.<<
>>> As folks are not attempting to insist that everyone who marries legally must also marry through religion, clearly they ARE able to understand that freedom of religion means this really is entirely and completely up to the couple in question and not a necessary component of legal marriage.
Haggle all you like, but you won't separate religion from marriage or make thousands of years of history disappear just to suit your ideology.
<.>>
There's no haggling necessary. Legally marriage and religion are separate. You do not need religion to be legally married.
>>> Interesting position. "Gay marriage isn't marriage because I don't want it to be marriage."
LOL! More like liberals wanting to call a cat a "fish"...and when it's, rather obviously, pointed out that a cat isn't the same as a fish, the libs accuse you of oppressing the cat.
>>> Ah, but it is. And soon, federal law will ensure that gays have equality with regards to marriage.
They already do, so it's unnecessary to enact new legislation. But if California is successful in amending it's constitution, I think you can look forward to a lot of states following suit...with the possibility of a Federal amendment to our Constitution.
>>> First round is on me.
Looking forward to it.
>>Other posters have alread pointed out to you why it is not equal. They have even offered analogies to help simplify it.
Simplification would be to answer directly and
Pages