RE: Let Freedom Ring!

RE: Let Freedom Ring! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 1:26:00 PM)
A church had done this way back. I wanted to tell my mom this news..but even tho she is understanding she prefers not to hear it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I-67U93xMU&feature=related anyhow here is a tume for you [all] "someone to love"

Alumbrado -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 5:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold This not a matter of "separate but equal". This is a matter of going around the religious aspects of the word and simply creating the opportunity for civil unions that bestow all the same rights and protections, as well as the responsibilities and consequences of the traditionally married couple. Same tax benefits, same rights to speak for a partner in medical emergencies, same right to adopt, yada, yada, yada. I also stated quite clearly that I think it should be called a civil union or something similar if a hetero couple chooses to be married in a civil cermony rather than a religious one. shrug "Marriage" licenses, since that is a civil matter, could be renamed to remove the word marriage completely. Marriages, if that is what the couple chooses, happen in a church involving God and "til death do we part" as opposed to in a garden and "as long as we both shall love". Get your legal requirements out of the way, and then have the appropriate ceremony. Who really cares! My opinion only, but removing the word marriage from this fight would take the wind out of the sails of the main objection. Then we can get down to the nitty gritty and, if necessary make the response: "Oh, I see, you don't want *anyone* who is not in a heterosexual relationship to be together in any legal way at all. Well tough titties...this is a civil matter...not a religious matter." JMO, of course. As to poly: Well, I am probably not of the norm there either. I think it is nobody's business, as long as it is consensual. But then I live in a state where Warren Jeffs is in jail and pending trial for reasons other that go far beyond polygamous relationships. We pretty much leave the people in Colorado City alone, unless there are abuses and someone calls the authorities in. So legally, I have no objection to them having as many civil unions as they want. Just register each one! None of which addresses the fact that neither wedding or marriage are religious words... the first comes from the root for 'wager', the second may refer to youth, as in young people choosing mates. If you want to draw a line that excludes anyone of religious faith from having the same ceremony as those who want a secular union, that is a different fight altogether, and I fail to see why GLBT people should fall in lockstep with your preferences.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 6:46:58 PM)
~FR~ I hope that everyone will not misunderstand Me. I know the basis upon which this fight continues. I believe that this will be challenged yet again and go to ballot. I am puzzled, admittedly over the fact that Cali, as much of a liberal state it claims to be, would have had a significant refusal for this passed by a vote of the people. I am simply suggesting a roundabout way to avoid all the drama, while affording the opportunity for something like a "civil union" with the exact same rights and protections for any and all. Sometimes one should choose their battles, and this is one that is continually lost and causes divisiveness and resentment. (I do not relate to the reason for this upset, but...Shrug) Is the word worth the continual aggravation? I am not trying to state that I am opposed or not opposed. I am just trying to throw out a suggestion for a practical alternative that provides the opportunity for those left out now to achieve what they want and need. In the end it is not up to Me to judge.

Owner59 -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 7:47:16 PM)
So when can we expect California to fall into the ocean,as we`ve been warned against?

DomKen -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 8:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold ~FR~ I hope that everyone will not misunderstand Me. I know the basis upon which this fight continues. I believe that this will be challenged yet again and go to ballot. I am puzzled, admittedly over the fact that Cali, as much of a liberal state it claims to be, would have had a significant refusal for this passed by a vote of the people. I am simply suggesting a roundabout way to avoid all the drama, while affording the opportunity for something like a "civil union" with the exact same rights and protections for any and all. Sometimes one should choose their battles, and this is one that is continually lost and causes divisiveness and resentment. (I do not relate to the reason for this upset, but...Shrug) Is the word worth the continual aggravation? I am not trying to state that I am opposed or not opposed. I am just trying to throw out a suggestion for a practical alternative that provides the opportunity for those left out now to achieve what they want and need. In the end it is not up to Me to judge. It sounds so simple but it isn't First you've got to get every state to rewrite their marriage laws to be both inclusive and renamed as civil unions. Then you have to get the feds to legally redefine the state under which all the federal benefits derive from one of marriage to one of civil union. Even one state holdout or the feds and we're right back to seperate and unequal and everybody wasted all that time and money. Simpler by far to fight the real fight that every constitutional scholar knows is the winner. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is an equal protection violation and eventually a SCOTUS will rule and gay marriage will be allowed everywhere.

TheHeretic -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 10:10:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen eventually a SCOTUS will rule and gay marriage will be allowed everywhere. Yes. And that methodology certainly put an end to the controversy over abortion...

mnottertail -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 10:18:40 PM)
well, there really isn't much of a controversy over abortion, turns out it is alot like the poor batards that are being slaughtered by raw milk. Women have got the right to vote, the choice, and all the very personal discussions you all hold in the airport bathrooms, dont seem to have a dint of argument......the world will pass abstinence by...........kinda like veterans, if you aint doing it, dont be instructing others in how the fuck it is put together. Why make a big deal about milk or abortion when you are killing 90+ thousand because you forgot to read a fucking penguin paperback book of the month club book? Readers Digest did it in like 50-80 pages.........

chickpea -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/16/2008 11:13:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kinkbound I see no reason why some people should be allowed to marry, while others aren't. Nevertheless, I wonder how many people marry as a proclamation of love and commitment, as opposed to tax advantages, health insurance advantages, or other perceived advantages. Yeah, keeping gay marriage legal, might make getting married generally harder to prevent roomates or friends from taking a weekend trip to Vegas to help each other out like if someone loses a job or suddenly becomes ill.

pahunkboy -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/17/2008 6:43:38 AM)
from another perspective- medical things- death things - at min this should be fixed not withstanding any gay marriage. gay marriage is and has been here many years. when you ask- did he marry a woman or man? there ya go. it is here.

DomKen -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/17/2008 6:54:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen eventually a SCOTUS will rule and gay marriage will be allowed everywhere. Yes. And that methodology certainly put an end to the controversy over abortion... Who cares about the controversy? If the anti aborion crowd wasn't blowing up clinics, shooting doctors and trying to subvert my nation I'd be quite content to leave them in peace. The same applies to the bigots who still oppose Brown v Board and the same will apply to the bigots who oppose the gay marriage. Just as no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion no one will be forcing anyone to have a gay marriage.

Irishknight -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/17/2008 7:06:10 AM)
What I find amazing is the uninformed belief that marriage is solely a christian creation. Marriages existed in some form or another before the church existed. Missionaries to countries that had little or no contact prior to their arrival found husband and wife pairings. Just because YOUR incarnation has to attach the bible to something that already existed doesn't make its origins in the bible. The lie that the church created marriage is just an attempt to justify preaching bigotry from a pulpit. The fact that so many people fall for it is frakkin hillarious. As far as gays getting married, it shouldn't affect your marriage one bit unless you or your SO is in the closet just waiting for the chance to come out and marry thier same sex partner. I love my wife no matter if the DOG and CAT next door get married. If your relationship is so weak that two guys going on their honeymoon endangers it then its anything but a "holy institution." Think about that the next time some politician gets up to "protect the holy institution of marriage." A truly holy marriage would be about love for your partner, not suppression of your neighbor.

TheHeretic -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/17/2008 10:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Who cares about the controversy? Now there is that authoritarian/totalitarian, "we'll just make them think right" streak of modern liberalism rearing it's head. The struggle for gay rights isn't only fought on one front. If such a sweeping decree is imposed on the legal front, we would have to expect a significant backlash on the social side. Not only from the bigots, but from those who resent gov't issuing such dictates. Any politician who has to seek office in such a climate is damn well going to care about that controversy. Look at the role the abortion issue has played in national politics from the Reagan years, right through today. How many seats in Congress have swung to the Republican on that? I don't want to put myself in the position of saying the GLBT community should just settle for scraps. There are fundamental rights at stake here. Who makes critical medical decisions? Who gets the body if someone dies? A gay couple in a committed lifetime partnership deserve exactly the same legal recognition a hetero couple would expect. I don't care about the verbiage, but if they do, so be it. But I think a 14th ruling from SCOTUS is the wrong tactic in the bigger goal. Doing it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause would achieve the same thing, but leave a measure of State control to discourage consolidation of the bigots. It is a compromise, but it allows the social front of the struggle to catch up, for a better end result, sooner.

LadyEllen -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/18/2008 12:38:54 PM)
Here's your problem (yes, its them damned shemale trannies again), certainly under UK law and EU law; Right now, looking as I do, living as I am - I can marry a woman, and it would be perfectly legal and a full, proper marriage; not a civil union. But right now, I cant marry a man - though I could form a civil union with him. If I apply for and get a gender recognition certificate as a female - for which I dont even need to have the SRS necessarily - I can then marry a man, but be forbidden from marrying a woman. But I'd then be able to form a civil union with her. This clearly makes a mockery of having any difference between marriage and civil union in law. From this position, it becomes only a matter of whether one wishes to apply faith interpretations - and in law thats a whole other can of worms; unless one is to propose to Muslims, Jews, Hindus et al, that theyre not married, but in a similar union as gay and lesbian people (and risk, lets call it "antipathy"), it is impossible to propose that faith should have any application as regards the law, and faith has to remain where it belongs in all this - a choice for those being united. E

TheHeretic -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/18/2008 12:52:02 PM)
I don't think we disagree, LadyE, (and you damned she-male trannies are fine in my book). I just don't think it is wise to rush in for a pyrrhic victory. 40 years is a long time (starting from Stonewall), but I think the steady evolution of social attitudes has to run the course.

DomKen -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/18/2008 2:31:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Who cares about the controversy? Now there is that authoritarian/totalitarian, "we'll just make them think right" streak of modern liberalism rearing it's head. The struggle for gay rights isn't only fought on one front. If such a sweeping decree is imposed on the legal front, we would have to expect a significant backlash on the social side. Not only from the bigots, but from those who resent gov't issuing such dictates. Any politician who has to seek office in such a climate is damn well going to care about that controversy. Look at the role the abortion issue has played in national politics from the Reagan years, right through today. How many seats in Congress have swung to the Republican on that? I don't want to put myself in the position of saying the GLBT community should just settle for scraps. There are fundamental rights at stake here. Who makes critical medical decisions? Who gets the body if someone dies? A gay couple in a committed lifetime partnership deserve exactly the same legal recognition a hetero couple would expect. I don't care about the verbiage, but if they do, so be it. But I think a 14th ruling from SCOTUS is the wrong tactic in the bigger goal. Doing it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause would achieve the same thing, but leave a measure of State control to discourage consolidation of the bigots. It is a compromise, but it allows the social front of the struggle to catch up, for a better end result, sooner. This is the same argument used every time every struggle for human rights reaches this point. We all know about Brown v Board. Would desegregation have happened without it? When? My bet is it would still exist somewhere in the US today with Brown v Board and the other rulings. When did the laws on interracial marriage finally go away? Loving v Virginia 1967. Would it be legal to marry interracially everywhere even today otherwise? I doubt it. What about the simple right for a married couple to control how many children they have? Up until 1965 it was still illegal in some states. It took Griswold v Connecticut to give married couples the right to artificial contraception. Would every state no matter how catholic have that today otherwise? We all know that it took until 2003 for the Supreme Court to finally forbid outlawing certain sexual activity based strictly on the gender of the particpants. How much longer should gays have had to wait not to have to break the law in order to have sex? Rights always advance over the objections of a vocal minority and always advance by the courts ruling that laws put on the books by those opposing those rights aren't Constitutional. Telling any group being discriminated against that they have to wait until the majority demands the repeal of laws that oppress the minority is absurd.

TheHeretic -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/18/2008 5:18:57 PM)
You are making my case for me, Ken. Each and every one of the cases you cited (Brown, Loving, Griswold, Lawrence) dealt with particular state or regional practices, rather than national policy (ok, Brown overturned existing federal law, but a great many states had already taken the step). Will it ultimately require such a ruling to bring the last hold-outs on gay marriage into the 21st Century? Probably. Are we there yet? No. I notice you completely skirted addressing the impact of Roe on our national politics. Do you think a similar ruling on gay marriage would be immune from such a backlash? I'm also troubled by what seems to be an attitude that individual rights are granted by the courts, rather than gov't being told what the limits of their rights are.

Owner59 -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/18/2008 5:54:24 PM)
Question: Has anyone explained "divorce", to gay people. Wait till that reality hits....

pahunkboy -> RE: Let Freedom Ring! (5/19/2008 6:29:36 AM)
3 states face this in November. AZ, CA, FL. many less then in the past. the 08 race only the swing sates really matter. that being FL, OH; maybe 1 other one.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875