Except there is no right that the government has to recognize the particular relationship you are in as a "marriage". You are making up a right that does not exist and then saying that people are being denied that right.
Right; remove the word "marriage." Let's give the government ONLY the right to ensure equitable civil liberties through contracted partnerships. The government needs that right, because otherwise estates end up in legal limbo, and everyone kills each other feuding. So now, any two people who so choose, should be able to enter into a legal partnership.
Leave "marriages" to the churches.
---
Or how about this: "There is no right that the government has to recognize the particular job you are in as your 'career,' or even for you to have a job at all. You are making up a right that does not exist." So it's OK for me to pass a constitutional amendment banning anyone named "pres" from having a job, or a career.
Except there is no right that the government has to recognize the particular relationship you are in as a "marriage". You are making up a right that does not exist and then saying that people are being denied that right.Right; remove the word "marriage." Let's give the government ONLY the right to ensure equitable civil liberties through contracted partnerships. The government needs that right, because otherwise estates end up in legal limbo, and everyone kills each other feuding. So now, any two people who so choose, should be able to enter into a legal partnership.
Leave "marriages" to the churches.
Got no problem with that. A couple of roommates that are going to bachelors for life, could enter into a legal relationship like this and I'd be fine with it. Let's leave the sex out of the equation.
Or how about this: "There is no right that the government has to recognize the particular job you are in as your 'career,' or even for you to have a job at all. You are making up a right that does not exist." So it's OK for me to pass a constitutional amendment banning anyone named "pres" from having a job, or a career.
I have to admit, it would kind of cool being named in the constitution even if it meant I had to be on welfare for the rest of my life.
Got no problem with that. Let's leave the sex out of the equation.
Amen, brother! Among reasonable people, there's always room for agreement -- it's just a matter of finding it.
Being a gay female gamer this annoys me to no end. Sure I live in Washington DC, but yet another same gender marriga bill is shot down! So. Mad.
*Guttural roar rings from coast to coast*
|
Except there is no right that the government has to recognize the particular relationship you are in as a "marriage". You are making up a right that does not exist and then saying that people are being denied that right.
But the Constitution does garantee us the right to the pursuit of happiness. My wife is my greatest sorce of happiness, just knowing that for whatever reason she chose to take my name as her own. Now if others are denied the right to pursue the same happiness then I'd say that violates the Constitution of this great nation. To treat anyone differently by law, is robbing them of their 'unalienable rights'.
You say that since their is no benifit to society in recognizing their right to marry/enter into civil unions, and maybe you'd be right. But can you tell me what benifit their was to de-segregation? Hell, it could be argued that freeing the slaves was detrimental to the wellfare of the country, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.
Yes we do indeed live in a democracy. And in a democracy, the majority of the peoples needs should be followed. However that majority has a moral obligation to treat any minority as equals, ensuring the elivation of our society as a whole. Remember the old saying "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link"? Well this country is only as free as it's smallest minority.
But the Constitution does garantee us the right to the pursuit of happiness. My wife is my greatest sorce of happiness, just knowing that for whatever reason she chose to take my name as her own. Now if others are denied the right to pursue the same happiness then I'd say that violates the Constitution of this great nation. To treat anyone differently by law, is robbing them of their 'unalienable rights'.
That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Also are you suggesting that if the government wasn't giving you special benefits, that you wouldn't have pledged yourself to your wife? Is the government recognizing your relationship the only reason you made a commited one?
You say that since their is no benifit to society in recognizing their right to marry/enter into civil unions, and maybe you'd be right. But can you tell me what benifit their was to de-segregation? Hell, it could be argued that freeing the slaves was detrimental to the wellfare of the country, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.
I didn't say there was no benefit, I am asking people to stop using emotional reasoning to actually come up with a concrete reason why the laws need to be changed. Property rights? Can't those be covered with existing laws? Power of attorney to make decisions on one's behalf, are there laws that cover that?
|
|
But the Constitution does garantee us the right to the pursuit of happiness. My wife is my greatest sorce of happiness, just knowing that for whatever reason she chose to take my name as her own. Now if others are denied the right to pursue the same happiness then I'd say that violates the Constitution of this great nation. To treat anyone differently by law, is robbing them of their 'unalienable rights'.That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Also are you suggesting that if the government wasn't giving you special benefits, that you wouldn't have pledged yourself to your wife? Is the government recognizing your relationship the only reason you made a commited one?
You say that since their is no benifit to society in recognizing their right to marry/enter into civil unions, and maybe you'd be right. But can you tell me what benifit their was to de-segregation? Hell, it could be argued that freeing the slaves was detrimental to the wellfare of the country, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.I didn't say there was no benefit, I am asking people to stop using emotional reasoning to actually come up with a concrete reason why the laws need to be changed. Property rights? Can't those be covered with existing laws? Power of attorney to make decisions on one's behalf, are there laws that cover that?
Nobody is asking for special rights. Only asking for the same rights as everyone else. If the goverment steped in and said it wouldn't recognize my marriage, or that me and my wife were not entitled to the same benifits under law that everyone else in the US was, then I would have serious issues with that. I'd say that would make any of us pretty damn emotional. Change is an emotional procsess. When Rosa Parks sat in that seat she wasn't exactly using logic. When Martin Luther King Jr. said he had a dream, he was pretty emotional. When the people of the fledgling nation we call home rebelled against the tyranny of a distant king, it wasn't logic, it was emotion. It was outrage, it was a desire for freedom, for equality, for liberty for all, that drove those emotions.
I married my wife out of love, between two consenting adults. How could I ever deny that same right, that same happiness to others?
|
I don't know all christians but I have studied there religious beliefs and every sect of Christianity choose which biblical laws to follow and discard the rest. Even the most orthodox sects like Greek and Russian Orthodoxies no longer follow most of the laws set down in the Old TestamentSo exactly how long have you known All Christians?All Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow and ignore the rest, if they followed all the religious laws in the bible all Christians would look, dress and act like Hasidic Jews.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
True, but for some reason the opponents of gay marriage I've spoken to always want to use Exodus. Right wing Christians seem rather fond of the Old Testament God-- Sodom & Gomorrah, killing of the firstborn, all the heavy-handed stuff.
I suppose if they quoted Paul I'd have to flip over to Corinthians and point out that Paul also said women should keep silent at church...
I would point out that Biblical Christianity started the trend when Peter preached the doctrine of taking Christianity to Gentiles who were not Jewish converst and Paul taught the doctrine, originally preached by Jesus himself, that the Law of Moses was fullfilled and that Christians were no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testiment. That is why Christians don't walk around looking like Hassdic Jews, because the Bible tells us that we don't have too.
Edit: Backs out of the thread again.
Nobody is asking for special rights.
I didn't mention anything about "special rights". I did mention special benefits that the government currently recognized relationships that they call "marriage".
Only asking for the same rights as everyone else. If the goverment steped in and said it wouldn't recognize my marriage, or that me and my wife were not entitled to the same benifits under law that everyone else in the US was, then I would have serious issues with that.
You of course realize those are different issues. And the government isn't "stepping in". Instead people are stepping in to the government and saying, "You HAVE to recognize my relationship." The government is not taking anything away from anyone, it is merely not giving certain benefits it gives some to others. The default is that the government doesn't do squat for your relationship, that is the default position. There should not be any expectation that the government will give a damn about anyone's relationship one way or another (i.e. no benefits). The fact that the government views one type of relationship as valuable enough that it wants to give incentives for those relationships to form, doesn't mean they are ripping apart other types of relationships.
I'd say that would make any of us pretty damn emotional. Change is an emotional procsess. When Rosa Parks sat in that seat she wasn't exactly using logic. When Martin Luther King Jr. said he had a dream, he was pretty emotional. When the people of the fledgling nation we call home rebelled against the tyranny of a distant king, it wasn't logic, it was emotion. It was outrage, it was a desire for freedom, for equality, for liberty for all, that drove those emotions.
I find the idea that there was no logic but only emotion in those changes a bit of a repulsive idea.
I married my wife out of love, between two consenting adults. How could I ever deny that same right, that same happiness to others?
And who is doing that? Again, the fact the government doesn't recognize the relationship doesn't mean the relationship still can't be formed. Are you suggesting that currently it is impossible for same-sex couples to have a long term and meaningful relationship just as emotionally satisfying as your own, merely because the government isn't recognizing it?
|
|
Presman, it is obvious you can't be reasoned with and have used double talk to try and belittle other peoples responses. To deny someone the same benifits and rights as others is the same as taking those rights away. Any fool can see that. Their are benifits in the eyes of the goverment to being married, from tax laws to spouses social security benifits. Same sex couples cannot recieve these, no matter how long they've been together. You're telling me that's right? Yes you are, of course you'll probably say that you are saying no such thing, but it is indeed what you're saying. I may not agree with you, or even like the way you live you're life, but I would be damned if I would allow the goverment, or anyone else for that matter, take away or deny you the same rights that I enjoy. Now go ahead and clip this so you can try to disprove what I'm saying all you want, I suppose you have that right, I don't care. Other than that, I have nothing more to say.
Presman, it is obvious you can't be reasoned with and have used double talk to try and belittle other peoples responses. To deny someone the same benifits and rights as others is the same as taking those rights away. Any fool can see that. Their are benifits in the eyes of the goverment to being married, from tax laws to spouses social security benifits. Same sex couples cannot recieve these, no matter how long they've been together. You're telling me that's right? Yes you are, of course you'll probably say that you are saying no such thing, but it is indeed what you're saying. I may not agree with you, or even like the way you live you're life, but I would be damned if I would allow the goverment, or anyone else for that matter, take away or deny you the same rights that I enjoy. Now go ahead and clip this so you can try to disprove what I'm saying all you want, I suppose you have that right, I don't care. Other than that, I have nothing more to say.
It might help to not make the entire argument an Appeal to emotion. Just a suggestion if you want to claim to be reasoning with others.
|
|
Presman, it is obvious you can't be reasoned with and have used double talk to try and belittle other peoples responses. To deny someone the same benifits and rights as others is the same as taking those rights away. Any fool can see that. Their are benifits in the eyes of the goverment to being married, from tax laws to spouses social security benifits. Same sex couples cannot recieve these, no matter how long they've been together. You're telling me that's right? Yes you are, of course you'll probably say that you are saying no such thing, but it is indeed what you're saying. I may not agree with you, or even like the way you live you're life, but I would be damned if I would allow the goverment, or anyone else for that matter, take away or deny you the same rights that I enjoy. Now go ahead and clip this so you can try to disprove what I'm saying all you want, I suppose you have that right, I don't care. Other than that, I have nothing more to say.It might help to not make the entire argument an Appeal to emotion. Just a suggestion if you want to claim to be reasoning with others.
And it might help if you quit trying to belittle everyone else. You are the one who said it should'nt be an emotional thing, I was pointing out the emotion behind change. You refuse to accept that emotion is the driving force behind change. Do me a favor, don't talk down to me. That is pretty much all you have done, even when I went out of my way to be civil. I suppose being behind a screen gives you a set? Yeah, you seem like that type. Have a nice time responding to this, God only knows it would kill you not to see your name on that side bar.
Or how about this: "There is no right that the government has to recognize the particular job you are in as your 'career,' or even for you to have a job at all. You are making up a right that does not exist." So it's OK for me to pass a constitutional amendment banning anyone named "pres" from having a job, or a career.I have to admit, it would kind of cool being named in the constitution even if it meant I had to be on welfare for the rest of my life.
Not at all. If you were important enough to be directly named in the Constitution, clearly you are so famous that you would be able to live off your fame and reputation.
So, as a perminent celebrity, you could bounce arround between upper class parties, pull a stint on Survivor, hit the talk show circuit, etc. None of these are actually a "job," but would make such an Important National Figure a fairly decent living. ;D
The idea of Gay marriage has long since lost any connotation of being an issue of sexual orientation and has been forced into the arena of equal rights. Plain and simple. It's the denial of said rights to a person based on an aspect of their lifestyle that has little to no bearing on anything outside their personal life.
ie. Issues that are in no G%!&~@n way the business of the Gov't or anyone else for that matter.
Sexual orientation is the least important aspect of this discussion. What any sane American should be focused on is that in our day and age people are being denied equal rights.
Probably folks you talk to or deal with every day. Friends, family, co-workers, hell, the person you say "Hello" to every day when you buy a cup of coffee. What we need to do is put faces to these people. This isn't a "minority". These are fellow Americans. They are people and they deserve the same rights.
To put this into perspective, I seem to recall Pres Man being the same person who was up in arms, demanding that Pathfinder be boycotted, when someone suggested that one of the minor NPCs in Sandpoint might or might not be homosexual in their backstory (obviously, the goblins are very righteous creatures, doing God's will in burning down such a depraved version of Gomorrah).
pres man, let's flip your assertation around. What does the government gain from denying same-sex marriages? Nothing.
What do they lose from allowing same-sex marriages? Nothing
So in the name of equality, one of the founding principles, why shouldn't the government sanction same-sex marriage?
To put this into perspective, I seem to recall Pres Man being the same person who was up in arms, demanding that Pathfinder be boycotted, when someone suggested that one of the minor NPCs in Sandpoint might or might not be homosexual in their backstory (obviously, the goblins are very righteous creatures, doing God's will in burning down such a depraved version of Gomorrah).
LoL, sorry Kirth, your memory has failed you badly.
I did not demand or suggest any kind of boycott of Pathfinder for the inclusion of any homosexual characters in Sandpoint or any other local.
What I asked was what benefit did it make to create a homosexual paladin. Homosexual bard/actor, no big deal. But to pick the most "moral" class to make a homosexual came across as a slap in the face of some possible customers of PF who may have religious reservations to homosexual lifestyles. I just thought it was needlessly dramatic and didn't really offer anything to story but to push an apparent "liberal" agenda.
Most people game to get away from the whole real world politics and drama. You can kill humanoids without dwelling on the moral implications if they behavoir sprang from a low social/economic position or it was truly their own free will.
Now if PF had gone into depth about how this paladin's particular deity actual tends to call homosexuals to be paladins, because for example they will not have offspring thus are less likely to be tied down with mortal concerns and can get on with the concerns of the deity or some more interesting reason. Then that would have been a different matter, but to toss in a throw away character like that was just pandering.
EDIT: Also it is kind of humorous to see me described as calling for a boycott, when I own all four of the 3.5 PF APs as well as several individual modules. I mean if I couldn't even convince myself to boycott, no wonder I failed. LoL
This thread is a good example of why Paizo should look into not allowing the discussion of politics or religion. These threads always break down into a flame war.
I just thought it was needlessly dramatic and didn't really offer anything to story but to push an apparent "liberal" agenda.
I sort of agree, but then again I didn't feel the need to protest, either. Paizo's world, their decision.
This thread is a good example of why Paizo should look into not allowing the discussion of politics or religion. These threads always break down into a flame war.
Dunno; the "civil religious discussion" thread is still pretty civil, even after > 5,000 posts, and there have been individual polital threads that stayed civil as well. Apparently it's when the two mix that we get into trouble.
pres man, let's flip your assertation around. What does the government gain from denying same-sex marriages? Nothing.
What do they lose from allowing same-sex marriages? Nothing
See, I am not sure that is true. I will admit, that I don't know of any, but the absense of evidence isn't the evidence of absense. It might just be as tedidious as going throw enormous numbers of documentations and crossing off "wife" and "husband" and writing in "spouse 1" and "spouse 2". It might mean losing some tax income due to same-sex couple being considered a unit. It may mean that other individuals may lose some rights, for example I remember hearing an NPR story when California changed their civil union laws to make them give all the same benefits as marriage and one homosexual couple officially ended their union (though they were sticking together) because the change in the law would have negative impacted one of person's children from a previous relationship (the spouse would have had priority over the children I believe was the issue). So, I honest don't know if there are any gains from denying or loses from allowing it, but there may be. Just because I can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist, which is why the status quo is the status quo. Change for the sake of change isn't enough of a reason.
This thread is a good example of why Paizo should look into not allowing the discussion of politics or religion. These threads always break down into a flame war.Dunno; the "civil religious discussion" thread is still pretty civil, even after > 5,000 posts, and there have been individual polital threads that stayed civil as well. Apparently it's when the two mix that we get into trouble.
Perhaps you're right. Having these type of threads can be very informative, even if they can get a little heated.
I understand what is meant by "Change for the sake of change isn't enough of a reason" and in some ways I agree. But I'm also not trying to get married to a same-sex partner. I don't believe extending equal rights constitutes change for the sake of change. It's a very real issue, with very real consequences for those who want it. Positive or negative, people want the same options that other American citizens have despite sexual orientation.
The important thing to look at here is most folks who are against same-sex marriage are making the decision for something that they have no stake in. The positive and negative aspects of marriage notwithstanding. What is being asked for here is the same rights despite gender issues. No more, but more importantly, no less than other citizens. Equal.
The arguement should be a non-issue for people unaffected by it. But the simple fact that certain rights are extended to one group of people and refused to another makes it a case of rights infringement based on sexual orientation. To me it's along the same lines as saying certain people can't vote or denying job opportunities. What's extended to one needs to be extended to all despite sexual orientation or gender.
And for those who argue religious reasons (which have thankfully been rather quiet here) Atheists get married everyday. Churches will always reserve the right to deny marriage to those who don't follow their tenets. Once again, not their concern. A couple does not need church sanction to a have marriage recognized by the state.
Perhaps you're right. Having these type of threads can be very informative, even if they can get a little heated.
I agree. This has been a rather civil conversation. But it is about something folks feel very strongly about. Myself included. I have faith in the community on this site to keep it pretty calm.
pres man, let's flip your assertation around. What does the government gain from denying same-sex marriages? Nothing.
What does the government gain? that's debatable. What do campaigning politicians gain catering to the Catholic and Fundamentalist Right?
There's your answer.
I fully agree that that's one of the reasons why some politicians are against it. However, then we've moved into the emotional reasoning again, which pres man seems to consider invalid.
See, I am not sure that is true. I will admit, that I don't know of any, but the absense of evidence isn't the evidence of absense. It might just be as tedidious as going throw enormous numbers of documentations and crossing off "wife" and "husband" and writing in "spouse 1" and "spouse 2".pres man, let's flip your assertation around. What does the government gain from denying same-sex marriages? Nothing.
What do they lose from allowing same-sex marriages? Nothing
So people should be denied same rights because of clerical issues might be too tedious?
It might mean losing some tax income due to same-sex couple being considered a unit.
It might also mean greater tax revenue because of all the fabolous new wedding parties. ;-)
Change for the sake of change isn't enough of a reason.
Yet status quo for the sake of not upsetting the religious right (or left for that matter) is acceptable?
Besides, it's not just "change for the sake of change," it's change for the sake of equality.
I fully agree that that's one of the reasons why some politicians are against it. However, then we've moved into the emotional reasoning again, which pres man seems to consider invalid.pres man, let's flip your assertation around. What does the government gain from denying same-sex marriages? Nothing.
What does the government gain? that's debatable. What do campaigning politicians gain catering to the Catholic and Fundamentalist Right?
There's your answer.
Not necessarily invalid, but it shouldn't only be dependent on that. Again, isn't that the argument against the people against same sex marriage, that they have no logical reasons to be against it and they only "feel" it is wrong? You can't say emotional reasoning is inappropriate to be the sole basis for deciding something and then turn around and use your own emotional reasoning for the sole basis of your decision.
So people should be denied same rights because of clerical issues might be too tedious?
Not necessarily, but your claim was that there was no negative consequence at all of any measure. I am just pointing out that there may be some, perhaps of insignificant degree, but still there may be some negative consequences. I honestly don't know if there are or not, but my lack of knowing if there are isn't reason enough to enact change before investigating further merely because I feel like there isn't.
===========================================
I will say the adoption thing disturbs me. Studies have shown that two parents are better for a child then one. An adoption program that makes it possible for single homosexuals to adopt but not for committed homosexuals (because they are not considered married but are living together) not to is flawed in my opinion. I can see some logic in being aprehensive of two people that could be married, living jointly and choosing not to. I would wonder why they had not made that choice and is that indicative of a stable home life for a child. But for a couple who does not have the choice to marry, this is less revealing. Perhaps they may not marry even if they could just like the other couple, or perhaps they would.
Because of that I think those laws should be changed to either allow the same-sex couple to marry and thus satisfy that condition of the adoption or change the adoption regulation and allow people to prove they have been commited to a joint union for some time (documentation such as bills and such to shown they have resided together for a number of years).
Well, I didn't read every quote but...
Now, the new guy is going to put his foot in his mouth. :-)
So, here is my take on this.
1. The definition of marriage
I have always seen defined (and until only recently seen defined, although there may be some exceptions...) marriage as a union between a man and a woman with the common exception to "a" being polygamy. This is the usage most commonly used by states.
So, by that definition, a union between two men or a union between two women would not be marriage. Would homosexual men and homosexual women still be able to be in a marriage? Yes, a homosexual man could still enter into said union (marriage as defined above) with a woman and a homosexual woman could still enter into said union (marriage as defined above) with a man. Each probably would not want to enter into said union but each would most certainly not be prohibited from doing so.
So, no equal protection violation. Both homosexual men and homosexual women can gain the benefit of the same laws that heterosexual men and heterosexual women can gain the benefit of and they must jump through the same hoops to do so: marry someone of the opposite sex.
There is no obligation for the government to make it as "pleasing" as possible for people to meet the necessary requirements to become a beneficiary of a law so long as it is available to everyone.
2. Why would states use a "limited" definition of marriage?
The important point to realize is that the government is not telling people they can or cannot "get married" according to whatever said peoples ideals of marriage happen to be. The government is specifically stating that there are only certain definitions of marriage that it recognizes because that is the definition which law makers had in mind when passing the laws which pertain to marriage. The government is not sticking its nose in and telling people what they can or can't do. The government is putting limitations on what it will do.
By limiting recognition to that definition, the lawmakers and the public ensure that the scope of the laws they have passed do not extend beyond what they intended without first gaining a chance to study the situation. Such is often the case with civil unions and domestic partnerships. The lawmakers and the public have taken the opportunity to determine what they think will be appropriate to award these unions that are not between a man and a woman. Sometimes people may think they go too far and other times not far enough.
3. Why was this "limited" definition chosen in the first place?
This definition was chosen because, as stated earlier, that is the definition used (had in mind...) when the foundation of laws pertaining to marriage were created. An important point to take into consideration is that in a marriage between people of differing sex there will often be a distribution of wealth and power based upon that sex. Some may lay it to sexism and others may lay it to nature but the laying of cause does not change the fact that such conditions exist.
Many marriage laws are directly or indirectly related to child rearing...
When a woman in a (traditional, limited definition here...) marriage gives birth, she has limited economic productivity for a while. There has been tendency (regardless of the reasoning for this tendency) for the woman in the relationship to become the "primary caregiver" and spend less time earning income as the family grows and ages. Although less now than in the past, it is still a tendency that effects economic independence of the woman and this impacts the family. For one, it affects the familial safety in cases of dangerous spouses. This is why we have the division of assets laws that we have as well as many others such as laws about insurance.
However, there is a difference in homosexual couples. There is no influence which will tilt the balance of power from one member to the other based upon sex. In a union between two homosexual males, the only source of a child will come from outside the marriage. By itself, this brings a third party outside the union into each and every case of two homosexual men looking for a child. Therefore, there is no tendency for the female to be pushed into being the natural caregiver (due to bearing the child, initially having a lower income which is common when comparing men to women, or any number of cultural reasons) because both are male. A similar distinction can be made regarding two females in a union. If a female wishes her partner to have a child (which will also involve a third party in some shape or form) in her family she can go from one lover to another until she finds a woman willing to bear a kid for the relationship. A female marrying a man does not have that option...
Also of note is the above mentioned relation of custody and the inclusion of a third party. There is often the difficulty in a relationship between heterosexual couples regarding paternity. Sometimes men will deny the paternity of children they have been fathered. Sometimes, women will lie about who is the actual father. An example regarding this is a recent case (Florida?) where a married couple split for a couple weeks, got back together, had a baby, and later divorced. Upon finding out he was not the biological father of the child (it would have wrecked the getting back together if he had suggested a paternity test at birth...) he moved to have his child support payments stricken. He was denied because his name was on the birth certificate. Homosexual couples do not have such surprises that may require arbitration because they know in advance that a third party is involved. There is no surprise in this regard...
The summation of this is simple and straight forward. Anyone can get married as long as they find someone to perform a ceremony for them. However, the state is not obliged to recognize that ceremony for purposes of the laws it passed because those laws were designed to cover specific situations that are directly related to situations that arise because the two members of the traditionally defined marriage are of differing sexes. Not to mention that any individual may gain the benefit of those laws so long as (s)he enters into such a marriage.
So, this brings up a question of my own...
Take these two related quotes:
I think Texas got it right by banning all marriages. Marriage is the leading cause of divorce after all.
F*cking homophobes.
and
I didn't mean all of Texas. Just the ones that voted for the amendment (and those who lobbied for it). I apologize; I shoulda been more clear.And I live in FL. I can't even adopt kids in this state.
So, I'm not in Texas but I do not think that marriage between two members of the same sex should be required to be recognized by the state based upon my beliefs/logic (or whatever you want to call it...) as stated above.
So, why am I a homophobe?
Side note: I believe there is nothing preventing homosexual couples from giving the care and love needed to raise children and with (from what I've heard) a shortage of available people to adopt kids that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children... Of course that leads to marriage requirements in adoptions but it might be possible to work unions in to replace those...
So, no equal protection violation. Both homosexual men and homosexual women can gain the benefit of the same laws that heterosexual men and heterosexual women can gain the benefit of and they must jump through the same hoops to do so: marry someone of the opposite sex.
If you accept that argument, then you must also accept the following:
Both white and black people can marry their own kind and gain the benefits that the law accords to marriage. Both are legally barred from marrying the other. Since white can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks, there's no equal protection violation. They can both get the benefits of marriage so there's no need to allow mixed-race marriages.
That was the argument for the ban on interracial marriage, thought for thought. Do you accept it? If you don't, why should you expect us to?
I give my nod to gay marriage. Seems sensible.
Maybe we need a new name though--that would seem to solve the problem of the sanctity of marriage and definition of marriage defenses.
"Homarriage" ... yes.
Now we can turn it all around. When someone gripes about homarriage we can say "It's sacred! How dare you sully this institution!
I give my nod to gay marriage. Seems sensible.
Maybe we need a new name though--that would seem to solve the problem of the sanctity of marriage and definition of marriage defenses.
"Homarriage" ... yes.
Now we can turn it all around. When someone gripes about homarriage we can say "It's sacred! How dare you sully this institution!
Creating names to call a minority of people always solves problem of equality. Look how the racial problem was solved when we stopped calling blacks n@*~~&s or when we stopped calling African-Americans blacks.
Ok, so I missed the target on the coinage. But really, if they'd just call it a civil union and grant to it the same rights as marriage the definers would lose their traction.
Of course it would create other problems... sigh.
But really, if they'd just call it a civil union and grant to it the same rights as marriage the definers would lose their traction.
Too late; the Texas constitutional ban, for one, was specifically written to exclude gay couples from any sort of civil union benefits: "marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
|
Ok, so I missed the target on the coinage. But really, if they'd just call it a civil union and grant to it the same rights as marriage the definers would lose their traction.
Of course it would create other problems... sigh.
I'm all in favor of the "civil unions for all, marriage for the churches" solution. Unfortunately, the loudest voices are those who either want to offer none of the legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples regardless of what you call it, and those who have been fighting for gay marriage for so long that a solution like that would feel like a defeat. Hence the impasse.
|
|
Ok, so I missed the target on the coinage. But really, if they'd just call it a civil union and grant to it the same rights as marriage the definers would lose their traction.
Of course it would create other problems... sigh.
most people who are Pro marriage and anti- gay marriage do not have a problem with civil unions. Why 10 they are against the redefining of a traditional and in many ways religious institution by a small group under the in their view false civil liberties rant. 2) They have no problem with civil unions. In the Idea that a civil union would be a government institution and a marriage would be a religious one. Separation of church and state and all. Also no one calling themselves a Christian should or would keep someones long term partner out of a hospital room if they are dieing of aids or some other horrid disease. If they did they are either a nutjob or a hypocrite.
most people who are Pro marriage and anti- gay marriage do not have a problem with civil unions.
75% of the people of Texas (the margin approving the Constitutional ban on gay marriage AND civil unions AND any other legally-recognized "marriage-like" status whatsoever) disagree with you on that, unfortunately.
|
|
So, no equal protection violation. Both homosexual men and homosexual women can gain the benefit of the same laws that heterosexual men and heterosexual women can gain the benefit of and they must jump through the same hoops to do so: marry someone of the opposite sex.If you accept that argument, then you must also accept the following:
Both white and black people can marry their own kind and gain the benefits that the law accords to marriage. Both are legally barred from marrying the other. Since white can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks, there's no equal protection violation. They can both get the benefits of marriage so there's no need to allow mixed-race marriages.
That was the argument for the ban on interracial marriage, thought for thought. Do you accept it? If you don't, why should you expect us to?
No we don't have to accept any argument.