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: 12-07-2006
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 12:52am

>>The law does not discriminate equally; it does not prevent hetero folk from marrying the gender to which they are attracted, unlike gay folk.


The law does not address sexual attraction.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2006
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 1:05am
>>To some, to others, not so much. In reality, quite easily changeable as societies grow more enlightened.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 2:25am

>>> Wrong again. Marriage is a social construct, something we currently codify into law in a certain way in this moment in time. It can change at any point through various means, and we've long discussed various ways this can happen.

Well, needless to say, you're wrong yet again. The Church certainly doesn't view marriage as a "social construct," but for those that do, it has remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years, so no...it can't "change at any point"...and the fierce opposition to those who wish to corrupt it is a demonstration of that fact.

>>> Marriage in my view is a lifelong commitment of the life of one to and with that of another in reciprocation.

That's lovely...unfortunately that's not the commonly accepted definition of marriage.

>>> We know it is not about procreation; countless examples here refute that nonsense.

Actually, procreation is a large part of it...as has been explained many times, but it's not surprising that those who support "gay marriage" would quickly dismiss that particular item.

>>> And we know the legal construct is not or should not be about our bits, rendering judgement on whether they are mostly like or unalike.

And yet, the design of our bits is at the heart of our success as a species and the root of marriage.

>>> Reducing it to such an inane level is legal folly.

And yet that folly was realized last November in California...so maybe it isn't quite the folly you imagine it to be.

>>> What the opposition is truly all about is the inability of some through unwillingness to consider that others can actually be attracted to the same sex. They aren't, and so they rather myopically think no one else should be, either.

Actually, I don't think that many conservatives are unable to fathom homosexuality.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 2:32am

>>> Fortunately, no one has named a poster on a message board as the definer of marriage for all people.

The world isn't limited to this board.

>>> Thanks for offering your opinion about the definition of marriage.

No problem. I'm happy to share the truth.

>>> Since gay people are already MARRIED in this country, yes...MARRIED--legally married...I beg to differ.

I guess we'll have to see how things work out in California...then see how that impacts the rest of the country.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 2:48am

>>> You are mixing two very different elements.

They're all integral elements of marriage.

>>> The members of the voting public each have their individual motivations, and this very heavily funded oppositional campaign played to unfounded fear. Only each member of the voting public decides for themselves how they cast their vote.

Both sides were well funded and both sides had and equal opportunity to make their case to the people...and the people spoke.

>>> That contrasts with the legal aspect, which cannot be intertwined with voter motivation after the voting is done, only with law itself.

The law is intertwined with the will of the people...who have a right to determine the values and morals of their society. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

And in this country, religion is out of that second mix. Period.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 3:23am

>>> I see... so other forms of discrimination, where say... people are bullied and denied rights is kewl with you?

Gays are bullied? Not that I've observed. Statistically, you stand a better chance of being attacked for your religion than you do for being gay. And denied rights? Again, it's a false argument because everyone has the same rights. What gays are asking for are extraordinary rights...and most conservatives would probably be willing to extend all the same rights that marriage confers, but extremists on the left are unwilling to compromise and make this demand for social parity ACTUALLY a demand for rights...and so they make it a fight to the bitter end.

>>> 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.

You stand a better chance of being struck by lightning than to be murdered because your lgbt...and you might as well make references to Hitler for all the relevance your trying to associate gay marriage with genocide and slavery.

<< 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^^^

With the exception of trying to connect genocide and slavery with gay marriage. LOL!

>>> 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.

Polygamy is gender neutral...and your "imaginings" don't add credence to your "oppression" of those with a different view of "marriage."

>>> 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.

Again, crap. Your musing are hardly sufficient to deny these people the "right" to be "married" and be happy. It is telling that you find it acceptable to oppress others rights to be "married" but insist on inflicting your definition on the rest of society.

>>> Third, the impact upon children, especially in a divorce scenario.

Something that is a terrible reality with same sex "marriages" when, along with the problems inherent in divorce, one partner typically has no legal or biological claim to the child...creating a horrible situation for both the non-biological "parent" and the child.

>>> None of these issues exist with same sex marriage.

All exist with same sex marriage.

>>> What you do get with same sex marriage are families being recognised legally.

The same with polygamous families.

>>> Recourse when discriminated against.

The same with polygamous families....and solved with civil unions.

>>> Partners who are not shunted aside when their parnter is hospitalised.

The same with polygamous families....and solved with civil unions.

>>> Legal parenting for both partners.

The same with polygamous families....and solved with civil unions.

>>> Access to health care.

The same with polygamous families....and solved with civil unions.

>>> Legal immigration of partners.

The same with polygamous families....and solved with civil unions.

>>> A fading away of this issue, and we all can go out and live our lives.

The same with polygamous families....and solved with civil unions.

>>> A better, less divisive society.

Did homosexuality suddenly become less "sinful" in the eyes of the Church? Has society suddenly become accepting of teaching our young children that "Heather Has Two Mommies"?

<< Just the ever so simple fact that these unions don't meet the minimum criteria to be called "marriage."

>>> And these are?

Well...um...the definition of marriage.

>>> Let me guess... sex where kidlets result. Older folks and those who will not have children need not apply.

I think we've all seen the troubles that can erupt when same sex couples separate and there are children involved.

>>> Um... opposite bits, because you know, one of each is always nice.

Nice? Necessary.

>>> Funny thing is... gay folk treat marriage with more respect than many hetero folk do, go fiture.

Because homosexuals are much more monogamous and moral than heterosexuals? LOL!

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 3:25am

>>> o some, to others, not so much. In reality, quite easily changeable as societies grow more enlightened.

Or less so as society trends back towards traditional values and morals.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 3:27am
Like both sides of the same coin are "separate."
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 3:31am
Well said.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 04-01-2009 - 3:42am

<>

>>> It's already been pointed out to you that the primary reason that a woman has maternity leave is to physically recover from giving birth, as recommended by ACOG. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. As for the other issues that I mentioned, they don't just "conveniently resolve" themselves within two months, but doctor's appointments are definitely much more infrequent after two months postpartum and breastfeeding is typically well established at that point.

Other women seem to disagree with you. They claim that the husband is not needed to help care for the woman or the child...and that she is, almost immediately, capable of caring for herself and the child. What kind of recovery time is necessary when women claim that this is the situation from the "get go" and you, yourself, said you were capable of working within two weeks?

<>

>>> Obviously I meant that maternity leave is in the best interest of the mother and the baby.

So you're saying that two months is sufficient time for a mother to bond with, and care for her child, before turning it's care and raising over to strangers?

>>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.>>

>>> Can you please point out to me where women here, other than myself, have told you that?

Previous posts...don't have the time or inclination to dig them back up now.

>>> I was the one who said that a woman doesn't necessarily need her husband home to care for her. And I stand by that. Even if a woman does suffer from some of the issues I described, that doesn't mean that she needs her husband home with her all day to care for her. I had quite a bit of physical trauma after the birth of my second child and although I would not have felt comfortable returning to work, I was certainly able to care for myself and my baby while my husband was serving in Iraq. And even if a woman does need help of some sort, or would like help, it doesn't necessarily have to be from her husband.

The guys/fathers/husbands I've spoken with tell a different story...of a bedridden wife who NEEDS their help after giving birth, and who needs their help taking care of the baby in the weeks/months afterward. Quite a different scenario from the one you paint.

<>

>>> As I said, it was YOUR advice. I did not personally advise you to contact your Congressman. I said you could always take your own advice.

Hmmm...I think you DID advise me to contact my Congressman...specifically. How strange.

<>

>>> Maternity leave is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is. There's a difference.

The issue was "fairness" not civil rights. There's a difference.

Pages