#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for your other comment, it was a point, nothing more. Your answers don't make sense. You can't pick and choose who gets married if the fight was always about "equal rights for everyone." You could use the same medical excuse for gays, as they can not procreate naturally. Once you re-write the constitution to re-define a marriage between a man and a woman, things will get much more complicated. It's not that simple. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts —Holly Hartman Definitions “Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex. * Massachusetts (since 2004) and California (since 2008) issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides. * Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007). “Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level. * Statewide laws in Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples. What's the Difference? The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections. According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law. Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html Again, that is just fukced up. Quote:
The bottom line is if they are consenting adults and there is no risk to an unborn child a la the married cousins, who cares if people marry? What do people care if I want to marry ten women at one time if we are all consenting. But, people cannot stand that notion - the notion of someone doing something they do not approve of even though it hurts no one. Gladys Kravitz anyone Once you re-write the constitution to re-define a marriage between a man and a woman, things will get much more complicated. It's not that simple. [/QUOTE] Yes, it is. If they are consenting adults, there should be no issue. But, if you want to go that route, then let's take away the automatic legal benefits granted to hetero couples. Let the hetero couples be subject to the same constraints listed above. Let them, like everyone else, spend thousands of dollars to contract into some of those situations. Let them spend thousands defending those contracts in court when they are challenged. That is the sole issue in this whole matter. No one would really care if the law recognized hetero marriages if hetero marriages were not automatically granted benefits based solely on a religious ideal. But, they are while others are not. Are you actually arguing this is fair from a legal perspective or that it satisfies the sentence: . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws U.S. Const., Art. 14, Sect. 1. I think you know better than that. I mean Art. 14, Sect. 1 does not have a final clause that says "unless we think Jesus wouldn't like it" |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Here is a post I made in the "election results" thread. It is relevant here.
This is why Obama was such an important win. What will now happen is same sex couples who marry in a state that allows it will try and make non allowing states recognize their marriages. Article IV, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Const. states: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. What this means is twofold: 1. Each state must recognize a marriage performed in another state as is what happens now in hetero marriage. The plain language of the Constitution must override the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, which states: 1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. 2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. DOMA will be found Unconstitutional and overturned. 2. If a state that disallows a same sex marriage but allows a hetero marriage without providing a legitimate and, perhaps, compelling reason essentially with, perhaps, no less restrictive alternative (See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) - the state disallowing the marriage will likely be seen as violating Article XIV, Sec. 1 (the so called "equal protection clause" ) - which states in relevant part that: . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ____________________________________ Once The Supreme Court makes these findings, the R's most def. will then push to amend the U.S. Const. to make marriage solely between a man and a woman. Within that lang. will also be the prohibition of civil unions, which really have nothing to do with marriage. I'd love to get Heather's (Mad4stevie) opinion on this rather fascinating Constitutional argument and the effect of the Obama justices on it. In the end, I just cannot see why it is so important to deny same sex couples the same benefits accorded automatically by law to hetero couples. But, the majority of Christians in this country cannot let others choose their own paths. They want to impose their widely different versions Christian principles on the masses no matter the Const. prohibition against doing so. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Good point. I just thought that the California situation was the most well known of the 3 so thats why I started the thread that way. It's no problem though if you wanna discuss the otehrs here too.`
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Here's my thoughts on this subject: Why do I care what you want/ do in your free time as long as you aren't pushing it on me? America is supposed to be "open-minded," that is what we are founded on, and we can't just give equality to people who only look/think like us, equality is for everybody!
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When I said you can still get married in this country without a religious connotation or officiant to your ceremony I was referring to male/female marriages. I was trying to imply that though marriage GENERALLY has a religious aspect to it, it's doesnt necessarily have to if you don't want it to. The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term. That may be unfair, but life isn't fair. And honestly, every single gay person I know in my life (including my brother) has no desire to get married. It's a small minority that actually want to marry, and for now, that right is denied to them by the majority. Are you joking? You're actually comparing the rights of sexual preference with the rights of blacks for being African American? Let's just compare oranges and bananas while we're at it. And no, I wouldn't like it if the government forced me to do something based on their sets of "ideals"...but we live in a nation where luckily, that hasn't happened yet. Many places in the rest of the world don't even have the freedom we have. Again, freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want. This is a selfish nation we live in. Thousands of people that deserve life die each day, and we sit here in our arrogance trying to refute the very definitions of words that have existed for eons. For what? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals want to marry purely for the tax breaks? No, it's nothing more than a middle finger to what some believe is a "traditional value."
__________________
Last edited by mylittledemon; 11-06-2008 at 03:02 PM.. |
#23
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
The answer is there is no reason other than that. So, despite what you say, it is a religious argument. Quote:
Quote:
For example, the Fla. one "invalidates any 'legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof.'" That is just wrong. Quote:
Quote:
That you defend this bigotry at all is beneath you. Quote:
But, to your point, it is happening now. Gay people are paying taxes on their unions that straight people do not have to pay based solely on a religious ideal. That is just wrong. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, I am still waiting for that one non-religious reason. Last edited by strandinthewind; 11-06-2008 at 03:38 PM.. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Your defense of this whole matter is completely skewed, my friend. You're using religion as your reason to fight against the definition of marriage, when all you're doing is swinging at air. Gays have just as equal rights as they did today and yesterday. They are not being denied any basic freedoms. What you are failing to mention is that gay, and lesbian couples (civil unions) have EXACTLY the same protections under the law as married couples. Again, you can't change the definition of something (marriage) because you simply don't like it, or it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle. Let's take Christ out of "Christmas" because you don't believe in Jesus' birth. That's the logic you're using. Now you're bringing up matt sheppard? That was a hate crime, and had nothing to do with homosexual marriage or the topic in general. At the end of the day, the people of California (who are generally labeled the "libs" and more than likely would've been against this proposition) have now voted TWICE on this matter now; both times with the same effect. Get the people on board, and you might make a change. Otherwise, deal with it. Like I said, life ain't fair my friend. It just ain't. And I gave you a reason. The DEFINTION of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. THE VERY word defines what it is. That is non religious my friend. And I never said I wanted to deny homosexuals any rights. I never once said that...so labeling me a religious bigot is a little presumptuous, and frankly childish.
__________________
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=mylittledemon;783349]
The point is, by definition, marriage = a union between a man and a woman. To seek to change that now, means you've have to change the definition of what marriage is. That's what is IS. A civil union between a man & a man or a woman/woman seems perfectly acceptable to me. But let's not call it marriage, because that's not what it is. It's outside the very simple definition of the term./QUOTE] Marriage generaly means just a connection or bond. I think that over time we have just naturally come to accept it as the way you defined it, but I don't think that it is limited to that. I once heard AjMcCarrell defend his opposition as more than religious by saying something about adopted children by gay couples have a higher crime rate, but you can choose whether or not you want to count that Strand. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=GoS;783359]
Quote:
__________________
|
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
But and again, I am using the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which you have yet to refute. Quote:
What's the Difference? The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections. According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law. Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html If you have facts to the contrary, let's see them Quote:
As for Christ in Christmas, I agree. I think people should say Merry Christmas all they want. Some people say Happy Holidays to be inclusive of other religions as Christmas is not the only holiday at that time of year. Are you actually arguing that is a bad thing? Obviously you do not want to be inclusive. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by strandinthewind; 11-06-2008 at 03:51 PM.. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
PS...wasnt the 14 Amendment in reference to slaves and African Americans?
__________________
|
|
|
Lot Of 77 Vinyl Records Classic Rock - Black Sabbath Fleetwood Mac Hendrix Bryds
$500.00
Fleetwood Mac - Tango in the Night- Vinyl Warner Bros 1-25471 1987 - Nm/Vg+
$21.25
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours (Gold Vinyl, 2021) Target Exclusive USED (See Details)
$19.99
Stevie Nicks Concert Tour Shoulder Tote Bag 15x15
$69.95
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours [New Vinyl LP]
$24.37