RE: Gay marriage

RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 8:22:41 AM)
quote: Well, in my state, Which state is that?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 8:25:09 AM)
I can't really speak to LA, but in WA, there are no bars to gays adopting, at least legal bars. This has more to do with insidious prejudices, which will exist as long as it is legally OK to treat some couples differently. EBM didn't solve that problem quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: In this case, the dads had the money to hire lawyers and experts to emphatically refute the agency's case. Couples with less wherewithal simply lose their children, since the courts view gay parents with suspicioun anyway. It's fucked up and I don't blame the gay community for not taking it any more. So much for everything but marriage. I imagine a similar debate to what has taken place here will happen in the WA legislature, with the same facile arguments. I certainly hope my state can do the right thing. I never said they should just take whatever treatment they are given. But, for example, using this issue - adoption. Is it better to wait until the relationship is identified as a marriage, for states like Louisiana that do not allow singles to adopt, or is it better to change that law, making it mandatory not to discriminate against singles in adoption procedures?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 8:26:51 AM)
Washington. As I stated in the OP, the outgoing gov is demanding that the legislature take up the issue of gay marriage. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Well, in my state, Which state is that?

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:07:11 AM)
quote: Ok. Well, in my state, gays have everything but marriage. So, according to your reasoning, it is now time for them to demand the right to marry, which they are doing. Were they supposed to wait longer? Yes there are states where they have that right but not all states do. The time to push for marriage will be when all states give that right. There's a long road ahead before marriage is a right all people have. Small steps have been taken but inroads are being made. It's not going to happen overnight. I suppose that they could start to fight for the right to marry but they'll have a stronger case if they wait until people in all states have CU.

Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:23:09 AM)
That'll probably take a while, though, and it's conceivable that there's a few states that won't make any move towards this until most of the rest of country already recognises gay marriages.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:32:29 AM)
quote: Were they supposed to wait longer? Nope, you dont wait. You push and push and push. But you also push for all the rights you can get. Someone mentioned being tossed a "bone" and that gays should toss it back. That kind of thinking I completely disagree with.

Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:38:53 AM)
quote: Your belief omits to notice that the OP also asked, "Conversely, why isn't an 'everything but marriage' law good enough?" for which your argument that a rose by any other name wouldn't smell the same is transparent nonsense. no i didn't omit anything. that question has been answered by me and by others, and our "transparent nonsense" has been proved 100% correct by you and clickofheels' responses. that you think gays should be satisfied with almost marriage to spare the religious sensibilities of others is exactly the attitude that proves that anything but full and equal marriage is unacceptable. quote: Additionally, the broad conceit that this is about the right to marry is nonsense. It's only about gaining the right to marry for a particular group, and even then only for the monogamous members of that group. Everybody else can go to hell. that's because this thread is about gaining the right to marry for a particular group. and you have misunderstood everything that has been said, yet again, i will explain in my reply to your final inanity. quote: Personally, I think we should all be able to marry any person or group of persons that we choose, and that those who seek only to further the interests of a single special group need to find a shorter horse to ride in this parade. i agree, we should be able to marry whoever we want, one or more. but since nobody is allowed to marry more than one person in this country, its a little hard to formulate a 14th amendment argument in favor of multiple marriage. a 1st amendment argument could be made, but that has been done and has been swept aside by the courts, thus allowing the unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, ban on multiple marriages. if you want to discuss that question and argument, then start a thread on that, but this thread is about gay marriage, so demanding that i promote every type of marriage equality in this thread is nothing but a red herring. come back and try again when you've got something.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:39:06 AM)
Personally, I wouldn't want to wait to demand my rights until the bible belt states pass EBM laws. That would practically insure a lifetime as a second class citizen. I just hope MY state does the right thing on this issue, rather than waiting to see what happens in redneckville. I gotta tell you, no offense intended, but arguing that gays should wait to demand marriage until all states have EBM laws is probably the lamest argument against gay marriage I have heard yet. It would have been like telling blacks they should wait to demand their civil rights until every state had legislated their miscegenation laws off the books. Would have been a long goddamn wait. If one of my legislators makes such an argument in the upcoming debates about this issue, I will be on the phone to their office in a heartbeat telling them what an idiot they are. What they decide to do in some backwater bible belt state has nothing to do with what happens in my state. Jesus, that should be obvious. There is a reason I don't live in Louisiana, for example. quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe quote: Ok. Well, in my state, gays have everything but marriage. So, according to your reasoning, it is now time for them to demand the right to marry, which they are doing. Were they supposed to wait longer? Yes there are states where they have that right but not all states do. The time to push for marriage will be when all states give that right. There's a long road ahead before marriage is a right all people have. Small steps have been taken but inroads are being made. It's not going to happen overnight. I suppose that they could start to fight for the right to marry but they'll have a stronger case if they wait until people in all states have CU.

Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:42:05 AM)
quote: No it isn't, it's taking what they can get now and continuing to fight for the rest of it. Who says that accepting CU now means giving up the fight for full marriage? It isn't a one or the other thing. I agree with Tazzy, get the rights associated with marriage and then fight for the right to marry. i'm afraid you're wrong. you only have to look at kirata's and clickofheels' arguments to see that i was right, and that people would seize on civil unions as an excuse to deny full equality. the constitution guarantees me equality, not equivalence or the same thing through different methods. equality .

Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:43:40 AM)
Miserlou, you're waiting on approval, mate. Check your inbox: you've obviously been modslapped.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 9:44:55 AM)
quote: Personally, I wouldn't want to wait to demand my rights until the bible belt states pass EBM laws. That would practically insure a lifetime as a second class citizen. I just hope MY state does the right thing on this issue, rather than waiting to see what happens in redneckville. Those were the last states to change when interracial marriage became the law under the Supreme Court. I do agree that they will probably be the last to comply with gay marriage as well.

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 10:44:38 AM)
quote: I gotta tell you, no offense intended, but arguing that gays should wait to demand marriage until all states have EBM laws is probably the lamest argument against gay marriage I have heard yet. When did I ever say I'm against gay marriage? Okay waiting for all states to recognize it may not be the best idea but if it isn't recognized in all states it would be invalidated simply by moving to one of those states - or as someone mentioned the couple being in a car accident and the uninjured person not having rights with regards to what care the injured person receives in the case of coma or some other injury that prevents that person from being able to make the decisions him/herself. So yeah start the fight now, it just won't be as strong as if EBM existed in all states.

GotSteel -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 2:03:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You're talking about marriage as though it's something that's currently unattainable, where I'm standing it's something that's already happened. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No, Im not. But no one has to accept a gay marriage until the governments tell them they do. The government has told them they do not. See the problem? quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html 457:1-a Equal Access to Marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated “bride,” “groom,” or “spouse.” I don't see what you're getting at. I'm in NH where this battle has already been won. The idea of giving up that victory and embracing defeat seems like a poor decision to me.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 2:07:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0436.html 457:1-a Equal Access to Marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated “bride,” “groom,” or “spouse.” I don't see what you're getting at. I'm in NH where this battle has already been won. The idea of giving up that victory and embracing defeat seems like a poor decision to me. Yeah but, see ... being married is bad enough ... asking people to go to New Hampshire to do it, seems cruel LOL

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 4:05:21 PM)
quote: No, Im not. But no one has to accept a gay marriage until the governments tell them they do. The government has told them they do not. See the problem? Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act No other state has to recognize the same sex marriage of NH.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 5:09:26 PM)
Seriously though; if NH already has a law that makes marriage legal, anyone that wishes to can get married in NH and then Art. 4 Sec.1 (Full faith and credit) would apply in all states *and* on a federal government level. Peace and comfort, Michael

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 5:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Seriously though; if NH already has a law that makes marriage legal, anyone that wishes to can get married in NH and then Art. 4 Sec.1 (Full faith and credit) would apply in all states *and* on a federal government level. Its supposed too. It doesnt work that way. I understand how its supposed to work. But if people arent willing to face the reality, which is the first step towards change..........

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 5:23:41 PM)
~FR The Full Faith and Credit Clause According to Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, "No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to."[17] This issue first arose with regard to interracial marriage. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states.[17] Thus, states were required to recognize an interracial marriage under the Equal Protection Clause and not under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court has not ruled on how or whether these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And, as with the interracial marriage issue, this is your holdup.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 5:28:26 PM)
DOMA, discussed earlier in this thread, also precludes that. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Seriously though; if NH already has a law that makes marriage legal, anyone that wishes to can get married in NH and then Art. 4 Sec.1 (Full faith and credit) would apply in all states *and* on a federal government level. Peace and comfort, Michael

GotSteel -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 7:27:45 PM)
As far as I can tell the courts are sorting this out at the moment. "The California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008,[94] but on November 4, 2008, voters passed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.[95] The amendment has since been declared unconstitutional in federal court, but same-sex marriages have not resumed in California because the case is still being appealed.[96]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#DOMA_and_state_legislation

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875