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) disagree with you on that, unfortunately.
Once again it’s religious ideology vs. equality.
Too late; the Texas constitutional ban, for one, was specifically written to exclude gay couples from any sort of civil union benefits.
Something like nineteen states with the ban have such all-inclusive bans, my own included.
Crud. I had a nice, well thought out post written here, and the update happened. Two good posts losts for two different reasons over the past two days. Not everything happens in threes...
Ah well.
A lot of people are going to be just as shocked as you are David, but I'd like to remind them all(as my dear friend who lives upstate reminds me) that NYS is GIGANTIC and overall quite conservative, especially where this issue is concerned. I'm not surprised it was defeated, but I am heartned by the amount of people who voted for it. Despite what a lot of people may think and the spin that the news reports put on it last night, I don't think it was open and shut.
Just like California, While we have our pockets of Liberal minded individuals, the majority of the state is conservative, thus explaining Prop 8. (That and the funding from the Mormon Church).
No we don't have to accept any argument.
I try to reason with people and I get this. What's there left to say then?
Thing: I should start with 1) I'm trying to edit your quotes to preserve the gist of your points without ending with a monster post, and 2) I firmly reject the tenets of rigid Originalism in regards to the U.S. Constitution.
So, here is my take on this.
1. The definition of marriage... marriage as a union between a man and a woman... So, no equal protection violation....
Originally in the U.S., there were laws preventing a Caucasian person from marrying a non-Caucasian person. Originally in the U.S., women were not allowed to vote. Originally in the U.S., people of African ethnicity were not allowed to vote, own property, or be considered a citizen of equal standing.
So, you consider it ok to deny the recognition of a marriage between a same-sex couple because that couple already has the right to marry opposite-sex partners?
2. Why would states use a "limited" definition of marriage?... 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...
3. Why was this "limited" definition chosen in the first place?...
Marriage is government-recognized contract between two consenting adults in which they both agree to a very long list of rights (and some responsibilities) that they will share with their partner. We, the citizens of the U.S., have already moved beyond the "original definition" of marriage when we recognized the rights of people of different skin colors to marry.
Why should same-sex couples be denied the recognition of their union by the government?
I'm not going to touch your point(s) involving child-rearing and economics beyond simply restating that 1) a loving, responsible, and nurturing same-sex couple can provide the same positive child-rearing environment as an opposite-sex couple, and 2) child-rearing is not a requirement of any marriage in the U.S.
...
I'll meet you half-way, Thing: I'll stop pushing for recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples in the U.S. when the Federal and all state governments recognize civil unions (between any two consenting adults, regardless of sex or sexual orientation) as having all the same rights as a marriage between an opposite-sex couple.
I try to reason with people and I get this. What's there left to say then?
No we don't have to accept any argument.Well if your reason was reasonable. Maybe its just me.
I would guess there is no more to say.
I tried reasoning. You just declared that you didn't have to accept it. Ok, so you rejected even the idea that you had a responsibility to answer a reasoned argument. Fair enough, but you've only told me that there's no point in bothering with you.
This kind of response is, incidentally, why I often don't bother.
As for just allowing same-sex unions with all the same rights as marriage without the name:
1) As already stated, most of the state "protection of marriage" amendments prohibit it.
2) Washington state just certified the results of just such a law that barely passed, even though it clearly and painstaking referred to them as civil unions and not marriage. And yet, it still ran into massive opposition from those attempting to "protect marriage."
|
As for just allowing same-sex unions with all the same rights as marriage without the name:
1) As already stated, most of the state "protection of marriage" amendments prohibit it.
2) Washington state just certified the results of just such a law that barely passed, even though it clearly and painstaking referred to them as civil unions and not marriage. And yet, it still ran into massive opposition from those attempting to "protect marriage."
Well; I was wondering if the "virtual marriage/civil union" thing would work; I guess that answers that then...
I'm all for gay marriage; who cares; leave people alone; your wife won't turn into a pillar of salt.
Originally in the U.S., there were laws preventing a Caucasian person from marrying a non-Caucasian person. Originally in the U.S., women were not allowed to vote. Originally in the U.S., people of African ethnicity were not allowed to vote, own property, or be considered a citizen of equal standing.
Women were allowed the right to vote in some states up into the early 1800s before it was stripped from them.
This is an important cautionary example to those who declare that the general trend is towards justice and thus patience will heal all wounds. It's not inevitable and even in our short history we've seen occasions of rapid advance in civil rights turn abruptly to reverse almost the entirety of past gains. Freed slaves in 1865 had more rights and freedom than their children would have for close to a century after.
Maybe call him some names then, dude.
Might as well. At least I wouldn't feel like the effort was wasted.
1) As already stated, most of the state "protection of marriage" amendments prohibit it.
Protect marriage by having something else that is not marriage also banned. Wow.
I guess if you have enough people you can do whatever you want. Tyranny of the majority.
Women were allowed the right to vote in some states up into the early 1800s before it was stripped from them.
D'oh! Thanks, I remember that now. Why do I keep forgetting important stuff like that, but I can't get rid of stupid stuff like product jingles or bits of bad TV shows/movies? Argh!
Tyranny of the majority.
Look at the big brain on Brett! That's right!
Correctamundo!
LOL
I've decided to protect myself by banning all of you.
.... now. How to realize that?
First I will create a bot that flags every post by every person other than me.
Meanwhile, the LSD laced pizzas will arrive at Paizo HQ.
.... hmmmm.
Next...
Ahhh. Yes. My army of Jessie Helms clones will attack.
And, remember kids, it's only "tyranny" when the majority disagrees with you. It's perfectly reasonable when you agree with them.
I see you've already been writing Beijing.
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.
|
|
I see you've already been writing Beijing.And, remember kids, it's only "tyranny" when the majority disagrees with you. It's perfectly reasonable when you agree with them.
The problem with democracy is it is, by definition, a "tyranny of the majority". Down the line. 49.9% of the population or less will always have their "rights"/opinions/way of life marginalized by the other 50.1% or more.
|
|
I don't understand crap like this. It's like letting people in California vote to ban gay marriage. You're letting the majority run the lives of the minority ... how is that fair?
When do we start voting to ban all religions except Christianity?
Sanctity of marriage ... tch whatever.
You want to live in a democracy? Take the good with the bad.
|
|
I don't understand crap like this. It's like letting people in California vote to ban gay marriage. You're letting the majority run the lives of the minority ... how is that fair?
Letting people vote...I thought that was democracy. Fair? Just?
Duck season.
You can vote in a democracy. The presence of a vote doesn't make something a democracy. They held elections in the Soviet Union. They held one in Iran recently. I doubt the majority won in either place.
You can vote in a democracy. The presence of a vote doesn't make something a democracy. They held elections in the Soviet Union. They held one in Iran recently. I doubt the majority won in either place.I don't understand crap like this. It's like letting people in California vote to ban gay marriage. You're letting the majority run the lives of the minority ... how is that fair?
Letting people vote...I thought that was democracy. Fair? Just?
Duck season.
I think we could say the same about certain US elections.
|
|
I think we could say the same about certain US elections.You can vote in a democracy. The presence of a vote doesn't make something a democracy. They held elections in the Soviet Union. They held one in Iran recently. I doubt the majority won in either place.I don't understand crap like this. It's like letting people in California vote to ban gay marriage. You're letting the majority run the lives of the minority ... how is that fair?
Letting people vote...I thought that was democracy. Fair? Just?
Duck season.
Yep. And when a clear majority did decide, we got someone just as incompetent and unqualified.
Six of one, half dozen the other.
I think we could say the same about certain US elections.You can vote in a democracy. The presence of a vote doesn't make something a democracy. They held elections in the Soviet Union. They held one in Iran recently. I doubt the majority won in either place.I don't understand crap like this. It's like letting people in California vote to ban gay marriage. You're letting the majority run the lives of the minority ... how is that fair?
Letting people vote...I thought that was democracy. Fair? Just?
Duck season.
Yep. And when a clear majority did decide, we got someone just as incompetent and unqualified.
Six of one, half dozen the other.
Time for a dictatorship. Hopefully Obama will do what Bush was too weak to achieve.
... we got someone just as incompetent and unqualified.
And between the two of them proof that intelligence has nothing to do with holding the highest American office.
What I think is also often overlooked in this is that some religious groups will perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.
The government is essentially refusing to recognize these religiously ordained marriages, but is explicitly endorsing marriages ordained by other faiths. In other words, the government is making laws that favor one religion over another.
Personally I don't think the government has any business denying same sex couples the same rights and privileges as anyone else. But, since I am anti-religious, I would prefer the government to be out of the marriage business altogether. Let the government consistently call it something else, and apply it equally and fairly. Let religions handle the rest on their own, however they want. I'm all for separation of church and state (and same-sex marriage).
A provocative insight into this whole affair, Seabryn.
Indeed it was
Things like this should be decided by the people in referendum, not by politicians or judges.
In principle I agree with you QXL99 but the reality is without the activist judges and lawmakers then the people would have voted down integration,the people might have voted down quite a few of the laws we take for granted as being normal and fair.
From my understanding of the way our government "SHOULD!!!" be run it is majority rules but minority rights. The judges are the power to make sure that the majority dosen't totally overrun the minority.Imagine a worst case senario where for whatever reason the moonies suddenly became the religious majority(no offense to any moonies, just using you as an example and you guys dont declare beheadings for it) and they have all the power so suddenly christianity,and all other religions are outlawed. That is what minority rights are setup to prevent. We take the bad with the good and do the best we can.
|
they believe that these lifestyles are wrong, socially corruptive and should actually be opposed.
I feel sorry for those people. To be so unaccepting of another's beliefs, implies a very narrow viewpoint, they must miss so much.
Emphasis mine, I wanted to make clear which part of the sentence I was referring to.
they believe that these lifestyles are wrong, socially corruptive and should actually be opposed.
I believe that they are wrong.
I don't understand crap like this. It's like letting people in California vote to ban gay marriage. You're letting the majority run the lives of the minority ... how is that fair?
When do we start voting to ban all religions except Christianity?
Sanctity of marriage ... tch whatever.
As to the "Sanctity of Marriage" ...
As for just allowing same-sex unions with all the same rights as marriage without the name:
1) As already stated, most of the state "protection of marriage" amendments prohibit it.
2) Washington state just certified the results of just such a law that barely passed, even though it clearly and painstaking referred to them as civil unions and not marriage. And yet, it still ran into massive opposition from those attempting to "protect marriage."
Well; I was wondering if the "virtual marriage/civil union" thing would work; I guess that answers that then...
I'm all for gay marriage; who cares; leave people alone; your wife won't turn into a pillar of salt.
Damn. Sorry Maikurion. I'll have to keep turning to you for flavoring.
(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).
I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."
(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."
With funding from a lot of individual members of the Mormon Church, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement. Better? :-)
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, the "sanctity of marriage" is easy to protect... outlaw divorce. Let's see how that goes over. ;-)
(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."With funding from a lot of individual members of the Mormon Church, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement. Better? :-)
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, the "sanctity of marriage" is easy to protect... outlaw divorce. Let's see how that goes over. ;-)
I believe I had posted that same idea. ;D
I believe I had posted that same idea. ;D(That and the funding from the Mormon Church).I was going to say something in response to this but then I thought "your mind is already made up, why confuse you with facts."With funding from a lot of individual members of the Mormon Church, who just happened, all on their own *cough cough*, to decide to fund the yes on prop 8 movement. Better? :-)
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, the "sanctity of marriage" is easy to protect... outlaw divorce. Let's see how that goes over. ;-)
Ahh, hadn't followed the link. :-)