RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

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



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:11:40 PM)

Oh, I know Im going to be labeled a bitch for this... but what the hell... wont be the first time.

equal legal rights... which are what? The right to be able to join together, in the eyes of the law, to have the same rights as any couple joined legally. I have this right, yes?

What is more important to them at this moment... the right to have that equal legal status... or the right to have it called a marriage?



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:12:49 PM)

Ignorance takes longer to stamp out..Id give it three generations.
But then you run the risk of losing the "historical" fight for equality"memories and how ugly it was and its importance.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:15:56 PM)

I think I mentioned this in an earlier post.  The EBM law applies in Washington, as long as a couple resided in this state, those are the rights they would have.  I think it is questionable whether a Washington domestic partnership would be recognized if the couple moved to a different state, for such things as intestacy, for one.  Other states are much more likely to recognize the rights of a couple that are legally married.

So, it really isn't equal.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh, I know Im going to be labeled a bitch for this... but what the hell... wont be the first time.

equal legal rights... which are what? The right to be able to join together, in the eyes of the law, to have the same rights as any couple joined legally. I have this right, yes?

What is more important to them at this moment... the right to have that equal legal status... or the right to have it called a marriage?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:28:07 PM)


Newsflash, Kirata.  I did not limit my statement to this thread.  have been reading things other than collarme today, like, for example, my local newspaper.  People are presenting arguments, believe me . Some of them seem pretty convinced gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it.  I have also heard arguments, one way or the other, at other times in my life.
Jesus, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
In any case, in answer to your statement, I don't agree that  "gays and lesbians would have faced considerably less of a problem getting their unions recognized if they had not insisted on the word marriage."   I base that on the hysteria that occurred when the "everything but marriage" law was passed in this state.  Basically, the same people who are now opposing gay marriage opposed that law too, and for the same reasons.  If one's basic mindset is that gays are not entitled to civil rights, then one would oppose domestic partnerships as well as gay  marriage.  It may be slightly easier to pass a dom partnership law, but considerably easier?  Don't think so.  Otherwise, every state would have a similar law as Washington does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet



I think you're talking to your hallucinations. Neither I nor anyone else has presented any argument AT ALL, convincing or otherwise, as to why gay marriage would be some kind of apocalypse. I simply stated my belief that gays and lesbians would have faced considerably less of a problem getting their unions recognized if they had not insisted on the word "marriage." If you want to respond to that, I'll be happy to hear what you have to say. Otherwise, I see no reason for you to continue to involve me in what is essentially a private conversation with yourself.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:34:16 PM)

quote:

I think I mentioned this in an earlier post.  The EBM law applies in Washington, as long as a couple resided in this state, those are the rights they would have.  I think it is questionable whether a Washington domestic partnership would be recognized if the couple moved to a different state, for such things as intestacy, for one.  Other states are much more likely to recognize the rights of a couple that are legally married.

So, it really isn't equal.


I agree, and yes, most states do not have to uphold other state's gay marriages.

However, if the hold up is labeling it a marriage....

Has it become more important to have the label?



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:45:26 PM)

quote:

They are trying to gain equal legal status, separate but equal isn't equal.
this!!! racial apartheid didn't work, sexual apartheid won't either. there was a time, not really all that long ago when a large segment of this country's people held "long honored traditions and deeply held feelings" regarding the intrinsic inequality of the races. it seems to me that the government acted with total disregard for those "long honored traditions and deeply held feelings", i don't see why this particular case is any different. fair is fair, and right is right. the religious aspect of marriage is irrelevant, there are millions of americans who have "long honored traditions and deeply held feelings" that multiple marriage is perfectly acceptable, yet those "long honored traditions and deeply held feelings" can be disregarded happily. so just what is it about these particular "long honored traditions and deeply held feelings" that make them so special?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:48:34 PM)

It isn't just a label, it is a legal distinction.,

For purposes of an example, let's use a hetero couple, registered as a domestic partnership in Washington.  They buy a house in Washington.  One of them dies without a will.  In this state, that person's share of the house WILL go to the other partner under the intestacy laws.  Let's say same couple moves to Oregon, and one dies.  Oregon real property or intestacy laws make no mention of dom partnerships, so dead partner's share of the house goes to whoever their legal heirs are.  Another example:  One dom partner in this state could not be required to testify against the other in a court of law in this state.  That protection would not apply in another state, without a dom partner law.
Same couple, but married.  Moves to Oregon.  Oregon has to recognize the marriage, as do all the other states under full faith and credit.  All states have some version of spousal privilege too.

Same with a gay couple.  There is some precedent for states that don't themselves allow gay marriage recognizing a legal gay marriage from another state.  There is no similar precedent for dom partners from other states, simply because it is a very state specific legal framework
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I think I mentioned this in an earlier post.  The EBM law applies in Washington, as long as a couple resided in this state, those are the rights they would have.  I think it is questionable whether a Washington domestic partnership would be recognized if the couple moved to a different state, for such things as intestacy, for one.  Other states are much more likely to recognize the rights of a couple that are legally married.

So, it really isn't equal.


I agree, and yes, most states do not have to uphold other state's gay marriages.

However, if the hold up is labeling it a marriage....

Has it become more important to have the label?



ConfidencePlays -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:59:25 PM)

See, here's the problem; if I were raised in a culture where our long honored traditions involved cannibalism, that doesn't make it okay to dine on my neighbor, even with a nice Chianti.


The simple reality is I was raised in a culture which has -for the past couple hundred years- (which I feel is of adequate measure to call it "tradition") fought for equality.

Women and blacks can vote. People of any race, gender, or religion can find work. The color of your skin does not define your worth as a person, and we don't have separate drinking fountains. Suffrage, my friend. Suffrage.

Gays ultimately -will- be allowed to marry, and if people are so horribly insulted by the notion, they can feel free to have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:00:06 PM)

quote:

It isn't just a label, it is a legal distinction.,


I think you are misunderstanding me.

The hold up for many, as I see it, is calling it a marriage... at least thats the excuse many will give.

I would think the legal issues, those you expressed, would be more impotant than the label "marriage".

Why has the push not been to gain the legallity as opposed to the term?

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg/450px-New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg[/image]

I suppose I am asking.. why not backdoor it?



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:04:35 PM)

cos the santorum drips out?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:10:01 PM)

The problem with "back dooring" it, Tazzy is that it allows 50 states to have 50 different legal frameworks, barring a federal law.  In this state, dom partnerships are extended ALL the same privileges that married people are.  In another state, they could decide to give dom partners all rights, but intestacy rights.  Another state could ONLY grant the right to acquire property as a community.  And on and on.  

And the Santorum thing, too



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:10:09 PM)

quote:

I think you are misunderstanding me.

The hold up for many, as I see it, is calling it a marriage... at least thats the excuse many will give.

I would think the legal issues, those you expressed, would be more impotant than the label "marriage".

Why has the push not been to gain the legallity as opposed to the term?
already answered by gotsteel.





farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:28:35 PM)

You people keep overlooking the 800 pound gorilla in the living room.

Same Sex Marriage isn't up for debate. Marriage is a civil contract regardless of what the religious extremists keep screaming.

The LAWS OF NEW YORK have always provided for it, and recently a Republican controlled legislature eliminated any ambiguity.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution makes it something every other state has to recognize under the law of our land.

Now, all we need to do is just deride and marginalize all the crazy religious extremists who contend that marriage is -- or has ever been -- anything but a civil contract.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:45:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Newsflash, Kirata. I did not limit my statement to this thread. have been reading things other than collarme today...

Well yanno, Iam, when you reply to someone's post, they are going to tend to think that you're replying to their post. And actually, that works pretty good most of the time. But I'll make a note that you're an exception. Thanks.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:51:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

quote:

I think you are misunderstanding me.

The hold up for many, as I see it, is calling it a marriage... at least thats the excuse many will give.

I would think the legal issues, those you expressed, would be more impotant than the label "marriage".

Why has the push not been to gain the legallity as opposed to the term?
already answered by gotsteel.






Actually, he did not.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:52:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

separate but equal isn't equal.

Ohferchrissake, get a grip. Nobody is talking about having separate facilities for gays and straights.

K.



searching4mysir -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:56:01 PM)

FR

I think you also have to ask why the State gets involved in marriage at all? Why is being involved in the State's best interests?

I do find it interesting, however, that even in pro-homosexuality pagan Rome, marriage was still between men and women. It wasn't even a thought to them that men could marry men and women could marry women.



Musicmystery -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:57:49 PM)

quote:

you also have to ask why the State gets involved in marriage at all?


Because the party had no solutions to the issues people cared about, like economics and war and security, so they had to dig up something emotional to gather support in place of any real policy.

No, I'm not being sarcastic.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 3:59:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

The problem with "back dooring" it, Tazzy is that it allows 50 states to have 50 different legal frameworks, barring a federal law.  In this state, dom partnerships are extended ALL the same privileges that married people are.  In another state, they could decide to give dom partners all rights, but intestacy rights.  Another state could ONLY grant the right to acquire property as a community.  And on and on.  

And the Santorum thing, too



No no no, I mean on a national level.




tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:01:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

FR

I think you also have to ask why the State gets involved in marriage at all? Why is being involved in the State's best interests?

I do find it interesting, however, that even in pro-homosexuality pagan Rome, marriage was still between men and women. It wasn't even a thought to them that men could marry men and women could marry women.



Thats easy... money.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875