RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

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



Message

Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:33:43 PM)

which is in fact what gotsteel addressed in his post, so he did in fact answer your question. separate but equal is NOT equal.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:35:43 PM)

as soon as you institute one form of union for straights and another form for gays, you have established a legal precedent that they are in fact not equal in the eyes of the law.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:39:44 PM)

quote:

which is in fact what gotsteel addressed in his post, so he did in fact answer your question. separate but equal is NOT equal.


I never said it was meant to be equal.

You are having difficulty with that, arent you.

quote:

as soon as you institute one form of union for straights and another form for gays, you have established a legal precedent that they are in fact not equal in the eyes of the law.


And I will ask... yet again...

What is more important right now.... the rights... or the label.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:41:07 PM)

The DOMA defined marriage, and determined that full faith and credit does not apply to same sex unions.  I guess I see that as different than saying that states are required to grant or even recognize civil unions.
The fight for same sex civil unions and marriages will have to continue at the state level.  And it is. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Matrimonial law is something that has traditionally been delegated to the states.  I am not even sure the feds have authority under the constitution to create a nationwide civil union law..  However, people ARE pushing for the feds to recognize same sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level. 


Why would they not? They made a law defining marriage. Why could they not make another defining civil unions?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:44:16 PM)

quote:

The DOMA defined marriage, and determined that full faith and credit does not apply to same sex unions.


Then why is this not being addressed?

The states can now deny the legitimacy to the legal contract between two men or two women because the government does not recognize that union.

This is what I mean by backdooring it. You get the feds to recognize it, the states will have to follow.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:45:04 PM)

Tazzy, you are helping me to frame what is really my question here.   Your argument seems to be that if gay couples are granted all the same rights as married people are, why do they care if they are actually married or not?  My question is, if gay couples are granted all the same rights as married people, why SHOULDN'T they just be granted the right to marry?  



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:47:24 PM)

quote:

What is more important right now.... the rights... or the label.
the label, because without it there is no equality. you seem to be having trouble with that, though i don't quite understand why because you yourself say it wouldn't be equal.

look, its very simple and obvious, the founding principle of this country is that we are all equal before the law, so having laws that make us unequal is wrong. if i can marry a man, then i also must have the right to marry a woman, otherwise, that woman is not equal before the law. saying a couple can't be married, but can be partnered is an insult, to the couple, to me, and to the country's basic premise.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:50:58 PM)

quote:

Tazzy, you are helping me to frame what is really my question here.   Your argument seems to be that if gay couples are granted all the same rights as married people are, why do they care if they are actually married or not?  My question is, if gay couples are granted all the same rights as married people, why SHOULDN'T they just be granted the right to marry?  


Because of the blue hairs are the money.

Remember, follow the money... always the money. Its the older generation, like Mitt, its the businesses who stand to profit... its insurance companies who stand to profit.. its law firms who stand to profit... all these profit in some way by keeping CU's illegal.

Wanting the right to marry is great.. and I am all for it. But to me, it would be more important that I could be at my Wife's side in the hospital than it would be for me to call our union a marriage.

And, yes, you can get that with a health care power of attorney... but you shouldnt have too. Yet, if gays are waiting for the right to get married before they get the right to other legal rights, they are simply being stubborn, in my opinion, and hurting themselves by demanding something that the power in this country is not ready to grant.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:52:22 PM)

What I was trying to get at is that DOMA doesn't require or prohibit the states from doing anything. Whether or not they recognize or grant civil unions or same sex marriages is left up to the individual states.   That is a far cry from mandating that all states grant civil unions.
So, in addition to the usual objections people raise to same sex unions, this would also create a big controversy about state vs. federal rights.  Doesn't sound like a smart strategy to me.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The DOMA defined marriage, and determined that full faith and credit does not apply to same sex unions.


Then why is this not being addressed?

The states can now deny the legitimacy to the legal contract between two men or two women because the government does not recognize that union.

This is what I mean by backdooring it. You get the feds to recognize it, the states will have to follow.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:57:43 PM)

no i'm not. just because you think the details are more important than the principle doesn't mean they are. you asked why the term marriage is so important and i have explained it to you. it is not the details that matter so much as the equality.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:57:53 PM)

quote:

What I was trying to get at is that DOMA doesn't require or prohibit the states from doing anything. Whether or not they recognize or grant civil unions or same sex marriages is left up to the individual states.   That is a far cry from mandating that all states grant civil unions.


The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. 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. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

As religious as many states are - considering the money tied up in religion - they wont until they are forced too. For proof of that....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:59:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

no i'm not. just because you think the details are more important than the principle doesn't mean they are. you asked why the term marriage is so important and i have explained it to you. it is not the details that matter so much as the equality.


Because those that hold the power do not want them to be equal. Yes, fight for it, yes, demand it, but in the meantime, take everything you can get and hold on tight until you do get what you want.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 6:02:01 PM)

OK.  But who says gays are "waiting for the right to get married before they get the right to other legal rights."  I think they would PREFER to be married, but are willing to fight like hell for civil unions, if that is all they can get.
I personally don't have a dog in this fight, it just doesn't feel right to me to deny the right to marry to same sex couples.  I think EBM laws are a big step in the right direction, but if you are going to treat people exactly as if they were married, why not just let them get married?  Since they are being treated exactly as if they were married, the objection to this can't be financial, it has to be moral.  I don't think morality should be legislated.  Nor, for that matter, do I believe that morality should be imposed on others.  That is what this feels like.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

[e]

Because of the blue hairs are the money.

Remember, follow the money... always the money. Its the older generation, like Mitt, its the businesses who stand to profit... its insurance companies who stand to profit.. its law firms who stand to profit... all these profit in some way by keeping CU's illegal.

Wanting the right to marry is great.. and I am all for it. But to me, it would be more important that I could be at my Wife's side in the hospital than it would be for me to call our union a marriage.

And, yes, you can get that with a health care power of attorney... but you shouldnt have too. Yet, if gays are waiting for the right to get married before they get the right to other legal rights, they are simply being stubborn, in my opinion, and hurting themselves by demanding something that the power in this country is not ready to grant.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 6:04:47 PM)

quote:

I think they would PREFER to be married, but are willing to fight like hell for civil unions, if that is all they can get.


I would hope they would prefer to be married. But the sign I posted a page or few back shows not everyone has that opinion of taking what they can get. Others have gone on the same path the gay community is going on now. They need to take notes from those lessons.

quote:

I think EBM laws are a big step in the right direction, but if you are going to treat people exactly as if they were married, why not just let them get married?


Control, power, discrimination, hatred. Many reasons. And they are doing it legally.

The more something walks and quacks like a duck, the more it will be viewed as a duck... to eventually end up being a duck.

Thats when you hit them with the "separate but equal isn't equal".



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 6:05:21 PM)

and in so doing establish the precedent that we are not equal? why not simply stand for what is right and demand the rights as guaranteed by the constitution. we are all equal, that is the premise of this country, to allow these half measures is to allow that fact to be overlooked and that basic principal to be overturned, as have so many of the basic ideals upon which this country was founded.

accepting civil unions or domestic partnerships is surrendering the principle upon which the whole demand is based. equal rights, not equivalent. if jim is not free to marry sam, then i am not free, nor are you. freedom and equality applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 6:10:49 PM)

If all things were fair and equal... yes... it should all be available to everyone.

Yet, not much is equal.. and a fair is a place where pigs win ribbons. Money rules this society. Money and power rules the vote.

quote:

if jim is not free to marry sam, then i am not free, nor are you. freedom and equality applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.


And Black Jim was not free to marry white Jane for many, many years. It took the federal government to give them that right, even though many states already had.

Gay marriage will happen.... it may take a couple more decades. In the meantime,. I am not saying to stop going after the whole enchilada... I am saying take the dip and chips, slurp on the margarita, and grab all you can before the main course. Protect yourselves until that time.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 6:11:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

you asked why the term marriage is so important... it is not the details that matter so much as the equality.

What term you use is a "detail."

K.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 6:51:06 PM)

i disagree. i think accepting anything but full equality would be a mistake and will slow down the process, as people will say things like they have on here, that they have all the same rights so they should be satisfied.

i guess to me the underlying principle is more important.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 7:01:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

accepting civil unions or domestic partnerships is surrendering the principle... equal rights, not equivalent.

Christians and Jews have different relationships with their God, the nature of said differences being designated by the terms Christianity and Judaism. But as you make clear, this noxious practice of using different terms to reflect the different nature of these relationships deprives Christians and Jews of their right to equality. This is a shameful and un-American state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand.

"Down with separate but equal!" "Up with Judianity!" We'll fix this stupid country.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

K.



Aynne88 -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 7:09:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

and in so doing establish the precedent that we are not equal? why not simply stand for what is right and demand the rights as guaranteed by the constitution. we are all equal, that is the premise of this country, to allow these half measures is to allow that fact to be overlooked and that basic principal to be overturned, as have so many of the basic ideals upon which this country was founded.

accepting civil unions or domestic partnerships is surrendering the principle upon which the whole demand is based. equal rights, not equivalent. if jim is not free to marry sam, then i am not free, nor are you. freedom and equality applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.


So fucking simple and basic, it's embarrassing and ridiculous that everyone doesn't comprehend this,



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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