| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"RoB WADe" |
| Date: |
18 May 2005 02:39:00 PM |
| Object: |
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
by Dave Bohon
The 2005 legislative session finds advocates of traditional marriage
renewing their efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment
defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They warn, however, of
counterfeits proposals from opponents, designed to weaken - or even
derail - true marriage protection.
Early Victories
Following the lead of 11 states that passed marriage protection
amendments Nov. 2nd , legislators in Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina,
Washington, Texas, and Virginia have stepped up to the plate to
introduce similar amendments defining marriage as only between a man
and a woman. Amendment proposals have already passed a first run in
Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and require one additional
vote in either of the legislative assemblies before going to the
citizens for final vote.
Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund said that the success in the 11
states Nov. 2nd "will encourage legislators in other states to follow
suit." Lavy told the Washington Times the action represented "an
overwhelming endorsement of the idea that marriage is what it always
has been - [the union of] a man and a woman."
So far constitutional amendments banning same-sex "marriage" have
already passed in 17 states. On Nov. 2nd, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
and Utah passed their amendments by a vote of the citizenry. Those
states joined Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana and Nevada,
which had previously passed amendments.
Minnesota's House of Representatives passed a Defense of Marriage
Amendment during the 2004 legislative session. The proposal did not
make it through the Senate, however, setting the stage for
re-introduction of the amendment this session. "I think if Senate
leaders listen to the voice of the people of Minnesota this year and
consider the message sent on marriage amendments across the country,
they'll allow the people to vote on this critical issue," said
Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard. "Surveys indicate
that a clear majority of Minnesotans want marriage to be defined as
only between a man and a woman."
Counterfeit Marriage
Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute warned, however, that
states should not be duped into allowing same-sex "civil unions" as
a compromise to same-sex "marriage." He said allowing legal civil
unions for homosexuals is "just gay marriage by another name." He
said that is the reason nearly a dozen states have enacted
constitutional marriage amendments that also bar civil unions. "They
don't want government endorsing homosexuality," he said.
"It's one thing for people to form their own bonds," said Knight.
"It's another to use the law to force acceptance on everyone else.
The law protects marriage because it is irreplaceable. Homosexuals,
like anyone else, are free to bequeath property, issue power of
attorney, enter contracts, and obtain medical access without creating a
counterfeit of marriage."
Some homosexual activists concede that "civil unions" are only a
stepping stone to legalized same-sex marriage. "Civil unions are not
the solution," said former Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl
Jacques. "Even if civil unions provided all the same legal
protections of marriage - which they don't - they would still be
a separate and unequal system."
Prichard said that creating "civil unions" as part of passage of
the marriage amendment would be an unacceptable compromise in
Minnesota. "We can't play games with such a crucial institution as
marriage," said Prichard. "Any deal which grants homosexual couples
all the rights and privileges of marriage but simply calls it civil
union is unacceptable. Marriage is unique and must be treated that way
- not just for the sake of the individuals involved, but also for
children and future generations."
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 04:32:46 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1116445140.571355.147640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, RoB WADe
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Must be frustrating to you to watch society pass you by and leave you
behind to a life of nothing but sputtering and howling about how awful
it's all become. Only to die, forgotten and irrelevant.
In a generation (or a bit), when "gay marriage" is the norm across all of
Western civilization and kids read in history books about the fussing and
fuming of people such as yourself, they'll think "how stupid."
And the world will go on...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 05:06:08 PM |
|
|
It seems to me like the homophobes do not understand the United States
Constitution; namely, that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to.
Marriage is now made official by the state; as such, it is now a
secular process divorced from any religion. Because of this, any
arguments against it from a religious standpoint are worthless, and it
is hard to argue legally against it given that marriage laws currently
do discriminate against gay couples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 11:02:48 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 15:06:08 -0700, wrote or
quoted :
that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to.
If men are allowed to marry women, then so should women.
The argument need have nothing to do with the mental state of the
participants (their sexual preference.)
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Kim Legaspi" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 11:18:49 PM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
On 18 May 2005 15:06:08 -0700, wrote or
quoted :
that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to.
If men are allowed to marry women, then so should women.
No arguement from me on that
I am more than willing to marry a woman...
--
"Guess what, Kerry? This isn't about you. This is about a confused and
frightened young woman who would rather kill herself than deal with the
stigma of being gay...maybe it is about you."
Dr. Kim Legaspi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 12:33:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:18:49 GMT, Dr Kim Legaspi
<KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote or quoted :
No arguement from me on that
I am more than willing to marry a woman...
this is the thing I find so weird. The religious bigots seem to thing
gay marriage has something to do with them. They believe they would be
deprived if we gays were allowed to have marriage licences too.
What possible difference could they notice?
Is it as childish as this? Johnny gets a bike for Christmas. He
lobbies Dad to not buy one for his sister, because then he would not
have a one up on her.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 08:15:36 AM |
|
|
"Roedy Green" <look-on@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i49o81t63m8ep6dgal397045l2482esgv4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:18:49 GMT, Dr Kim Legaspi
<KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote or quoted :
No arguement from me on that
I am more than willing to marry a woman...
this is the thing I find so weird. The religious bigots seem to thing
gay marriage has something to do with them.
Well, it does! You see, it's well-known that anti-gay bigots are themselves
secretly gay. They're just afraid that legalizing gay marriage will get them
into a situation in which their secret gay loves demand commitment!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rightard Whitey" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 08:44:15 AM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Roedy Green" <look-on@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:i49o81t63m8ep6dgal397045l2482esgv4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:18:49 GMT, Dr Kim Legaspi
<KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote or quoted :
No arguement from me on that
I am more than willing to marry a woman...
this is the thing I find so weird. The religious bigots seem to thing
gay marriage has something to do with them.
Well, it does! You see, it's well-known that anti-gay bigots are themselves
secretly gay. They're just afraid that legalizing gay marriage will get them
into a situation in which their secret gay loves demand commitment!!
All marriages are civil unions. You get the license to marry form the
state, not the church. the church performs the marriage ceremony and
sends the paperwork back to the state. A clergyman is not needed;
however, to marry.
--
Educating rightards every day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Kim Legaspi" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 09:02:15 AM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:18:49 GMT, Dr Kim Legaspi
<KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote or quoted :
No arguement from me on that
I am more than willing to marry a woman...
this is the thing I find so weird. The religious bigots seem to thing
gay marriage has something to do with them. They believe they would be
deprived if we gays were allowed to have marriage licences too.
What possible difference could they notice?
Is it as childish as this? Johnny gets a bike for Christmas. He
lobbies Dad to not buy one for his sister, because then he would not
have a one up on her.
It probably is.
If gays and lesbians get married, then "Christian" marriage somehow
becomes less special in their minds....
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
--
"Guess what, Kerry? This isn't about you. This is about a confused and
frightened young woman who would rather kill herself than deal with the
stigma of being gay...maybe it is about you."
Dr. Kim Legaspi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 12:56:26 AM |
|
|
"Dr Kim Legaspi" <KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote in message
news:428C9C66.97F4D76B@LesbianER_Doc.edu...
Roedy Green wrote:
Is it as childish as this? Johnny gets a bike for Christmas. He
lobbies Dad to not buy one for his sister, because then he would not
have a one up on her.
It probably is.
If gays and lesbians get married, then "Christian" marriage somehow
becomes less special in their minds....
Still, they have never been able to explain exactly how this is so...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 11:29:37 AM |
|
|
"Dr Kim Legaspi" <KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote in message
news:428C9C66.97F4D76B@LesbianER_Doc.edu...
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:18:49 GMT, Dr Kim Legaspi
<KLegaspi@LesbianER_Doc.edu> wrote or quoted :
No arguement from me on that
I am more than willing to marry a woman...
this is the thing I find so weird. The religious bigots seem to thing
gay marriage has something to do with them. They believe they would be
deprived if we gays were allowed to have marriage licences too.
What possible difference could they notice?
Is it as childish as this? Johnny gets a bike for Christmas. He
lobbies Dad to not buy one for his sister, because then he would not
have a one up on her.
It probably is.
If gays and lesbians get married, then "Christian" marriage somehow
becomes less special in their minds....
Not to mention that a huge number of legal marriages have nothing to do with
their ritualistic voodoo. Of course, that fact never occurs to them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 05:55:35 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 15:06:08 -0700, wrote:
It seems to me like the homophobes do not understand the United States
Constitution; namely, that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to.
Marriage is now made official by the state; as such, it is now a
secular process divorced from any religion. Because of this, any
arguments against it from a religious standpoint are worthless, and it
is hard to argue legally against it given that marriage laws currently
do discriminate against gay couples.
actually I believe you are wrong
The states regulate marriage. Marriage is an historic institution,
and as such is informed by a religious tradition. OTOH, the states
shoudl be allowed to tinker with their respective regulation of the
institution.
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ (as opposed
to Jesus W. Christ). This did not stop England from creating the
trust law, as a way of circumventing normal probate law to pass wealth
to mistresses and second iwives.
By the same token, the civil law in the US should adopt itslef to the
legitimate concerns of gay people.
Jesus Christ of the Gospels taught that second marrigages are
adultery. No so-called Christian of the Jesus W. Christ school cares
one hoot about Jesus Christ's teaching and perhaps applying it to
civil law. Why? It would be UNPOPULAR. Gays are easy targets for
the so-called Christians of the Jesus W. Christ school. Gays are
UNPOPULAR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 05:38:58 AM |
|
|
<Fair> wrote:
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ (as opposed
to Jesus W. Christ).
Nevertheless, since the Remormation the Lutheran churches have accepted
divorce and new marriages for devorcees. Even church weddings for
divorcees ...
The great question in to-day's Denmark is whether to allow church
weddings for gay couples. Eventually, it will come.
--
Per Erik Rønne
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 06:22:44 PM |
|
|
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles
to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only religion capable of
scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
<Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
news:428bc657.242860968@news.supernews.com...
On 18 May 2005 15:06:08 -0700, wrote:
It seems to me like the homophobes do not understand the United States
Constitution; namely, that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to.
Marriage is now made official by the state; as such, it is now a
secular process divorced from any religion. Because of this, any
arguments against it from a religious standpoint are worthless, and it
is hard to argue legally against it given that marriage laws currently
do discriminate against gay couples.
actually I believe you are wrong
The states regulate marriage. Marriage is an historic institution,
and as such is informed by a religious tradition. OTOH, the states
shoudl be allowed to tinker with their respective regulation of the
institution.
Even when that "tinkering" violates the Constitution, or infringes upon
civil rights?
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel
The U.S. is not a Theocratic nation, so what is or is not according to the
Gospel (in all it's various incarnations and interpretations) is not
relevant to Civil Marriage.
taught by Jesus Christ (as opposed
to Jesus W. Christ). This did not stop England from creating the
trust law, as a way of circumventing normal probate law to pass wealth
to mistresses and second iwives.
By the same token, the civil law in the US should adopt itslef to the
legitimate concerns of gay people.
By enacting civil marriages for same genered couples.
Jesus Christ of the Gospels taught that second marrigages are
adultery. No so-called Christian of the Jesus W. Christ school cares
one hoot about Jesus Christ's teaching and perhaps applying it to
civil law. Why? It would be UNPOPULAR. Gays are easy targets for
the so-called Christians of the Jesus W. Christ school. Gays are
UNPOPULAR.
Left handed people were once unpopular to, that was also religious based and
stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 06:44:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:22:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest particles
to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only religion capable of
scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
<Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
news:428bc657.242860968@news.supernews.com...
On 18 May 2005 15:06:08 -0700, wrote:
It seems to me like the homophobes do not understand the United States
Constitution; namely, that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they
shouldn't be able to.
Marriage is now made official by the state; as such, it is now a
secular process divorced from any religion. Because of this, any
arguments against it from a religious standpoint are worthless, and it
is hard to argue legally against it given that marriage laws currently
do discriminate against gay couples.
actually I believe you are wrong
The states regulate marriage. Marriage is an historic institution,
and as such is informed by a religious tradition. OTOH, the states
shoudl be allowed to tinker with their respective regulation of the
institution.
Even when that "tinkering" violates the Constitution, or infringes upon
civil rights?
My point must be too subtle for you. I was talking about states
tinkering with their marriage laws to ALLOW for gay marriage, or
perhaps to allow for ancillary rights of marriage to gay civil unions.
As far as the prohibition of gay marriage being a violation of the
constitition (presumably of one or more of the first ten amendments),
this would news to the generation of the Founding Persons.
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel
The U.S. is not a Theocratic nation, so what is or is not according to the
Gospel (in all it's various incarnations and interpretations) is not
relevant to Civil Marriage.
The United States never intended to start a revoultionary society from
Year One or anything like that. MY God, I sound like some kind of Pat
Buchanan talking to you.
taught by Jesus Christ (as opposed
to Jesus W. Christ). This did not stop England from creating the
trust law, as a way of circumventing normal probate law to pass wealth
to mistresses and second iwives.
By the same token, the civil law in the US should adopt itslef to the
legitimate concerns of gay people.
By enacting civil marriages for same genered couples.
Jesus Christ of the Gospels taught that second marrigages are
adultery. No so-called Christian of the Jesus W. Christ school cares
one hoot about Jesus Christ's teaching and perhaps applying it to
civil law. Why? It would be UNPOPULAR. Gays are easy targets for
the so-called Christians of the Jesus W. Christ school. Gays are
UNPOPULAR.
Left handed people were once unpopular to, that was also religious based and
stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 06:57:25 PM |
|
|
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:22:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
[snip old stuff]
Even when that "tinkering" violates the Constitution, or infringes
upon civil rights?
My point must be too subtle for you. I was talking about states
tinkering with their marriage laws to ALLOW for gay marriage, or
perhaps to allow for ancillary rights of marriage to gay civil unions.
The only tinkering that has been done to the state marriage laws in recent
years is the states adding laws and amendments to ban gay marriage. The
allowance of gay marriage would have required no tinkering otherwise.
As far as the prohibition of gay marriage being a violation of the
constitition (presumably of one or more of the first ten amendments),
The 14th, most specifically. Equal protection under the law, and all that.
this would news to the generation of the Founding Persons.
They all died a couple of hundred years ago. It would have been news to
these same founding persons that blacks should be free, or that women were
allowed to vote. Time marches on, society changes.
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel
The U.S. is not a Theocratic nation, so what is or is not according
to the Gospel (in all it's various incarnations and interpretations)
is not relevant to Civil Marriage.
The United States never intended to start a revoultionary society from
Year One or anything like that.
Thomas Jefferson once stated that the United States should stage a
revolution every twenty years, just to keep the leaders in check. However,
it was never known if he made the statement "tounge-in-cheek" or not.
MY God, I sound like some kind of Pat
Buchanan talking to you.
Well, you do seem a bit obsessed, but we get a lot of that around here.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 07:57:31 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:22:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
[snip old stuff]
Even when that "tinkering" violates the Constitution, or infringes
upon civil rights?
My point must be too subtle for you. I was talking about states
tinkering with their marriage laws to ALLOW for gay marriage, or
perhaps to allow for ancillary rights of marriage to gay civil unions.
The only tinkering that has been done to the state marriage laws in recent
years is the states adding laws and amendments to ban gay marriage. The
allowance of gay marriage would have required no tinkering otherwise.
As far as the prohibition of gay marriage being a violation of the
constitition (presumably of one or more of the first ten amendments),
The 14th, most specifically. Equal protection under the law, and all that.
In some ways, the 9th, too.
this would news to the generation of the Founding Persons.
They all died a couple of hundred years ago. It would have been news to
these same founding persons that blacks should be free, or that women were
allowed to vote. Time marches on, society changes.
Freedom is on the march!
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel
The U.S. is not a Theocratic nation, so what is or is not according
to the Gospel (in all it's various incarnations and interpretations)
is not relevant to Civil Marriage.
The United States never intended to start a revoultionary society from
Year One or anything like that.
Thomas Jefferson once stated that the United States should stage a
revolution every twenty years, just to keep the leaders in check. However,
it was never known if he made the statement "tounge-in-cheek" or not.
Ever read Al Franken's Book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"?
No, you don't have to agree with anything Al has to say, but he does
have a great term for what Thomas Jefferson said above:
Kidding on the square.
Kidding on the square means that you are joking, but still mean what you
say. Thomas Jefferson was obviously kidding on the square.
MY God, I sound like some kind of Pat
Buchanan talking to you.
Well, you do seem a bit obsessed, but we get a lot of that around here.
That's because both of your are apologists. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 09:06:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:57:25 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:22:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
[snip old stuff]
Even when that "tinkering" violates the Constitution, or infringes
upon civil rights?
My point must be too subtle for you. I was talking about states
tinkering with their marriage laws to ALLOW for gay marriage, or
perhaps to allow for ancillary rights of marriage to gay civil unions.
The only tinkering that has been done to the state marriage laws in recent
years is the states adding laws and amendments to ban gay marriage. The
allowance of gay marriage would have required no tinkering otherwise.
You're incorrect. I believe several state supreme courts have struck
down bans on gay marriage based on state constitutional provisions.
As far as the prohibition of gay marriage being a violation of the
constitition (presumably of one or more of the first ten amendments),
The 14th, most specifically. Equal protection under the law, and all that.
Equal protection is in the 15th amendment. But that's neither here
nor there. The drafters of the 15th would have been astonished that
they had mandated all state-law relationships to be gender neutral.
In point of fact it required a constitutional amendment to give women
the franchise in state elections.
this would news to the generation of the Founding Persons.
They all died a couple of hundred years ago. It would have been news to
these same founding persons that blacks should be free, or that women were
allowed to vote. Time marches on, society changes.
Yes, we still live under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Nobody says that
we have no idea what it means. Our idea of the limits of federal
diversity jurisdiction goes back to Strawbridge v Curtis in the 1830s.
NObody says we have no idea what Strawbridge says.
Legislatures are the places to effect the marching of time.
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is considered
adultrery according to the Gospel
The U.S. is not a Theocratic nation, so what is or is not according
to the Gospel (in all it's various incarnations and interpretations)
is not relevant to Civil Marriage.
The United States never intended to start a revoultionary society from
Year One or anything like that.
Thomas Jefferson once stated that the United States should stage a
revolution every twenty years, just to keep the leaders in check. However,
it was never known if he made the statement "tounge-in-cheek" or not.
Well he was president 24 to 32 years post revolution, so you can draw
your own conclusion.
MY God, I sound like some kind of Pat
Buchanan talking to you.
Well, you do seem a bit obsessed, but we get a lot of that around here.
Why do you allege I seem a bit obsessed?
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 09:48:00 PM |
|
|
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:57:25 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:22:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
[snip old stuff]
Even when that "tinkering" violates the Constitution, or infringes
upon civil rights?
My point must be too subtle for you. I was talking about states
tinkering with their marriage laws to ALLOW for gay marriage, or
perhaps to allow for ancillary rights of marriage to gay civil
unions.
The only tinkering that has been done to the state marriage laws in
recent years is the states adding laws and amendments to ban gay
marriage. The allowance of gay marriage would have required no
tinkering otherwise.
You're incorrect. I believe several state supreme courts have struck
down bans on gay marriage based on state constitutional provisions.
A few have, however my statement stands. Previous to this decade, only two
states had such laws or amendments. The State Supreme Courts have struck
down a few.
As far as the prohibition of gay marriage being a violation of the
constitition (presumably of one or more of the first ten
amendments),
The 14th, most specifically. Equal protection under the law, and
all that.
Equal protection is in the 15th amendment. But that's neither here
nor there. The drafters of the 15th would have been astonished that
they had mandated all state-law relationships to be gender neutral.
The wording of the amendment, both the 14th and the 15th are quite explcit.
The drafters should have been more careful in their wording.
In point of fact it required a constitutional amendment to give women
the franchise in state elections.
However my statement still stands.
this would news to the generation of the Founding Persons.
They all died a couple of hundred years ago. It would have been
news to these same founding persons that blacks should be free, or
that women were allowed to vote. Time marches on, society changes.
Yes, we still live under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Or rather the Judiciary Act as modified by Marbury v. Madison.
Nobody says that
we have no idea what it means. Our idea of the limits of federal
diversity jurisdiction goes back to Strawbridge v Curtis in the 1830s.
NObody says we have no idea what Strawbridge says.
Legislatures are the places to effect the marching of time.
Also not true. The Courts have been used time and time again to effect
change. See Marbury v. Madison for the courts authority in such cases.
Second marriages between heterosexuals of opposite sex is
considered adultrery according to the Gospel
The U.S. is not a Theocratic nation, so what is or is not according
to the Gospel (in all it's various incarnations and
interpretations) is not relevant to Civil Marriage.
The United States never intended to start a revoultionary society
from Year One or anything like that.
Thomas Jefferson once stated that the United States should stage a
revolution every twenty years, just to keep the leaders in check.
However, it was never known if he made the statement
"tounge-in-cheek" or not.
Well he was president 24 to 32 years post revolution, so you can draw
your own conclusion.
I actually think it's a good idea anyway.
MY God, I sound like some kind of Pat
Buchanan talking to you.
Well, you do seem a bit obsessed, but we get a lot of that around
here.
Why do you allege I seem a bit obsessed?
Just joking on that one. :c) We do get a lot of that around here though.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 06:58:09 PM |
|
|
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
The states regulate marriage. Marriage is an historic institution,
and as such is informed by a religious tradition.
Cue Henry VIII: Head of the Anglican Church.
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 08:57:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:58:09 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector wrote:
The states regulate marriage. Marriage is an historic institution,
and as such is informed by a religious tradition.
Cue Henry VIII: Head of the Anglican Church.
not being an Anglican, I have nothing to say in defense
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 11:47:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:55:35 GMT, Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart
Detector wrote:
The states regulate marriage. Marriage is an historic institution,
and as such is informed by a religious tradition.
1. Marriage began as a secular function for exchange of property and
goods.
2. Whose religious tradition would you like to be informed by?
The Catholics, who would only allow Catholics to marry Catholics, so
then you'd have to convert?
The Mormons, who would allow you to have many wives? But again, you'd
have to convert first to Mormonism.
Or perhaps you'd care to go with the factual historical-religious
tradition where same-sex couples were married by the RCC and Orthodox
churches in religious unions?
Ein Prosit der Gemtlichkeit --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 01:44:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:06:08 -0700, thetitaniumdragon wrote:
It seems to me like the homophobes do not understand the United States
Constitution; namely, that it is illegal for the government to
discriminate on the basis of sex. It is obvious that gays should be
allowed to marry under the Constitution; there is no reason they shouldn't
be able to.
Marriage is now made official by the state; as such, it is now a secular
process divorced from any religion. Because of this, any arguments against
it from a religious standpoint are worthless, and it is hard to argue
legally against it given that marriage laws currently do discriminate
against gay couples.
If you define "marriage" as a religious sacrament, then the governments
have no business recognizing it at all. The ONLY type of relationship
that the government has any authority to recognize is a civil union, with
marriage being one form of civil union.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 05:52:39 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 12:39:00 -0700, "RoB WADe" <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com>
wrote or quoted :
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
how is your life improved by trying to create misery for others?
You are not involved in any way in the lives of gay people. What is it
to you how they arrange their relationships? Why do you think it is
even any of your business to interfere? What did any gay person do to
harm you?
How does it help you to block a gay man from visiting his spouse in
hospital?
How does it help you to block a gay man from going to his spouse's
funeral?
How does it help you to rip a family apart when one gay spouse dies?
You are one sick, malicious ***** Rob. See
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/robwade.html
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cartrivision1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 01:09:16 AM |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
On 18 May 2005 12:39:00 -0700, "RoB WADe" <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com>
wrote or quoted :
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
how is your life improved by trying to create misery for others?
You are not involved in any way in the lives of gay people. What is
it
to you how they arrange their relationships? Why do you think it is
even any of your business to interfere? What did any gay person do to
harm you?
In my state (Oregon) voters last November approved a constitutional
amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman. Before, the
law said mariage was between "husband and wife", but I guess to the
radical gays that was too vague and in Portland the county commisioners
took it upon themselves to give out marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. This decision was just overturned by the state supreme court.
Now, the state legislature is considering a bill (SB 1000) which will
give ALL of the same rights to gay couples as are given to married
couples. People are upset at this, as they see it as basically a
run-around to the recent vote. I would probalby be OK with it but it
is only available to same sex couples, transgendered couples, etc.
Their is no provision for couples who either do not want marriage or
who are not involved in any kind of sexual relationship. Just the GLBT
folks.
Now I believe the usual suspects are behind this (ACLU, etc.) but it
seems to me that if these benefits are going to be opened for gay
couples, they should also be open to other couples in whatever kind of
relationship they might have. But the gay community as always just
seems to be concerned with their own narrow interests. I know that
marriage in it's present form is not perfect, but it should be
preserved in it's present state. People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle. Just as
I as a single person do not get some of the same perks as a married
person(s).
CTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 11:29:37 AM |
|
|
"Cartrivision1" <doidy1@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1116482956.648952.120130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Roedy Green wrote:
On 18 May 2005 12:39:00 -0700, "RoB WADe" <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com>
wrote or quoted :
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
how is your life improved by trying to create misery for others?
You are not involved in any way in the lives of gay people. What is
it
to you how they arrange their relationships? Why do you think it is
even any of your business to interfere? What did any gay person do to
harm you?
In my state (Oregon) voters last November approved a constitutional
amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman. Before, the
law said mariage was between "husband and wife", but I guess to the
radical gays that was too vague and in Portland the county commisioners
took it upon themselves to give out marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. This decision was just overturned by the state supreme court.
Now, the state legislature is considering a bill (SB 1000) which will
give ALL of the same rights to gay couples as are given to married
couples. People are upset at this, as they see it as basically a
run-around to the recent vote. I would probalby be OK with it but it
is only available to same sex couples, transgendered couples, etc.
So, you're upset because opposite-sex couples wouldn't be able to take
advantage of the rights provided by SB 1000, which would be exactly the same
as the rights provided by civil marriage?
Apparently, it hasn't occurred to you that opposite-sex couples already have
a way to obtain all of the rights of civil marriage. It's called 'civil
marriage.'
Their is no provision for couples who either do not want marriage or
who are not involved in any kind of sexual relationship. Just the GLBT
folks.
Incorrect. SB 1000 has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It would apply
to any same-sex couple, hetero-, homo-, bi- or asexual, who chooses to take
advantage of it. It's no different than the fact that a civil marriage
license is available to any opposite-sex couple, regardless of the sexual
orientation(s) of the couple.
Now I believe the usual suspects are behind this (ACLU, etc.) but it
seems to me that if these benefits are going to be opened for gay
couples, they should also be open to other couples in whatever kind of
relationship they might have. But the gay community as always just
seems to be concerned with their own narrow interests. I know that
marriage in it's present form is not perfect, but it should be
preserved in it's present state.
I remember hearing precisely the same thing in the 1960s.
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Just as
I as a single person do not get some of the same perks as a married
person(s).
That's gotta go into a sig file someplace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cartrivision1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 01:49:09 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Well, as I hope you are aware that a child can only be conceived by a
man/woman pairing. Of course modern medicine has allowed people to
conceive by other methods but these methods were not available until
recently. The reason government (and private employers) give perks to
married persons is that it is for the betterment of society.
Society has determined (as evidenced by last years elections) that it
prefers this traditional meaning of marriage, and the majority does not
wish for gay couples to mock marriage by allowing for same sex unions.
Call that bigoted, homophobic, or whatever you want to call it but the
majority of americans do not think that same sex coupling is on the
same level as a man and woman. But hey, if you want to live together
and call yourself "married" or whatever, knock yourself out.
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete
farce.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 03:42:29 PM |
|
|
"Cartrivision1" <doidy1@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1116528549.260430.83320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Well, as I hope you are aware that a child can only be conceived by a
man/woman pairing.
'Lifestyle' is defined by far more than your simple-minded penis-vagina
fertility model.
And I hope you're aware that according to the 2000 U.S. census, the majority
of opposite-sex married couples are childless.
Of course modern medicine has allowed people to
conceive by other methods but these methods were not available until
recently. The reason government (and private employers) give perks to
married persons is that it is for the betterment of society.
The ability to reproduce isn't mentioned in any civil marriage statute, and
is not a requirement for obtaining a marriage license.
Society has determined (as evidenced by last years elections) that it
prefers this traditional meaning of marriage, and the majority does not
wish for gay couples to mock marriage by allowing for same sex unions.
That's nice, but it's already happening. Get over it.
I remember hearing exactly the same rhetoric about interracial marriage in
the 1960s.
Call that bigoted, homophobic, or whatever you want to call it but the
majority of americans do not think that same sex coupling is on the
same level as a man and woman.
The term I'd use is 'narrow-minded.'
So, besides the assortment of genitals, what are the differences?
But hey, if you want to live together
and call yourself "married" or whatever, knock yourself out.
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of
just accepting the gains that have been made,
'Damn those uppity niggers should be happy sitting in the back of the bus.'
they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete
farce.
The majority opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 12:40:07 AM |
|
|
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Well, as I hope you are aware that a child can only be conceived by a
man/woman pairing. Of course modern medicine has allowed people to
conceive by other methods but these methods were not available until
recently. The reason government (and private employers) give perks to
married persons is that it is for the betterment of society.
So infertile people should not get married?
You know, I see this argument all the time, and I see the response I
just gave everytime it comes up. You are an idiot if you think people
should only get married if they are capable of producing children.
Society has determined (as evidenced by last years elections) that it
prefers this traditional meaning of marriage, and the majority does not
wish for gay couples to mock marriage by allowing for same sex unions.
Mock?
I got two words for you, pal. 'Britney' and 'Spears'. That little
waterhead gets to go off and be married for a handful of hours while
friends of mine that have been together for years are banned from marriage.
There is No Such Thing as 'sanctity of marriage'.
Call that bigoted, homophobic, or whatever you want to call it but the
majority of americans do not think that same sex coupling is on the
same level as a man and woman.
The majority is not always right. Even the founders of our country knew
this.
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete
farce.
I'm straight, and >I< find your attitude extremely disgusting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 02:28:17 PM |
|
|
"Tim McGaughy" <teekem@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:d6jt8601fhh@enews2.newsguy.com...
Cartrivision1 wrote:
[snip]
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete
farce.
I'm straight, and >I< find your attitude extremely disgusting.
You just made his head spin off his neck. These bigots can't wrap their tiny
minds around a concept like that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cartrivision1" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 06:14:37 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"Tim McGaughy" <teekem@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:d6jt8601fhh@enews2.newsguy.com...
Cartrivision1 wrote:
[snip]
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they
would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead
of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a
complete
farce.
I'm straight, and >I< find your attitude extremely disgusting.
You just made his head spin off his neck. These bigots can't wrap
their tiny
minds around a concept like that.
Than I take it that you think that "those bigots" make up the majority
of the US voting public? Because gay "marriage" was voted down in
every single state that it came up for a vote. And in some states
close to 80% against, so that means the vote was across party lines.
Face it....not everyone feels like you do about the subject. And just
calling people bigots beacuse of their beliefs does not make it so.
CTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
