Originally posted by telerionwell said. I would have preferred to see more ranting and personal character attacks but it'll do.
If your biggest concern is that marriage has been defined as being between men and women (it would be an enormous stretch or at historically short-sighted to sat "between one man and one women" ) with the purpose for producing stable families, then I don't see why their is an issue.
Putting aside my objection to claiming that marriage been defined thr ...[text shortened]... mpelling argument and I don't think some one with your intelligence should either.
Originally posted by telerionYes, but not allowing same sex marriage is not considered discriminating against anyone. Gay men are allowed to get married, just not to each other.
Didn't you and no1 already talk about this? It was my understanding that the government could not discriminate against individuals unless it could show a compelling state interest for doing so. It seems that an "everything but marriage" bill paints them into a corner in terms of showing a compelling state interest.
In addition, sexual orientation has not been listed as a suspect classification by the US Supreme Court (though the Mass. Supreme Court may have done it, but that only works for Mass.). Therefore, believe it or not, a law that differentiates based on sexual orientation, at least under federal law, need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Originally posted by telerionWell, thank you. I don't think I should be the standard bearer for the anti-gay marriage movement on this board as I have confessed ambivalence on this issue and have stated that the prospect of open and widespread gay marriage does not really bother me.
Take away the "stable families" cause and your just left with let's not change it because it's been that way in the past. I don't think that's a very compelling argument and I don't think some one with your intelligence should either.
I'm sure there are intelligent people on this board who oppose gay marriage. I think it would be best for one of them to step in and assume that mantle.
Originally posted by sh76okay, but in the case of a state where there is no constitutional definition of marriage doesn't an "everything but marriage" law eliminate an cause rationally related to a legitimate government interest?
Therefore, believe it or not, a law that differentiates based on sexual orientation, at least under federal law, need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
(I think Washington does have a constitutional definition so this question is hypothetical).
Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living and counted the old names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry or in high, cold towers asking questions of the stars. And so the people of Gondor fell into ruin. The line of Kings failed. The white tree withered. The rule of Gondor was given over to lesser men.
-Gandalf
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo, racial minorities, like all people, have rights because they are people, and all people have inalienable rights.
i thought the various anti- amendments have had quite active and coordinated support from the anti-gay-marriage advocates. at least in california. church groups, etc.
racial minorities have rights today because the rights were imposed and enforced from the top.
Originally posted by sh76What about equal rights for blacks?
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?
0-31.
That's right.
0-31.
Chew on that for a moment.
0-31.
Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.
...[text shortened]... ventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.
If that got voted down, would the losing party be congradulating the winners as well?
Originally posted by uzlessIn Britain we don't have "gay marriage"; we have "civil unions" instead. A few people complain that this is unequal. Most, however, just shrug and accept that there's a different term for gay partnerships than for straight partnerships, and concentrate on the main thing: the fact that the same rights and benefits are offered.
Exactly. Gay people want the same access to use a word as everyone else. But "everyone" else won't let them have access to the word.
It has to be the most insane debate in the history of mankind.
Anyway, as soon as civil unions had been enacted, the press started referring to Elton John's marriage, and Stephen Gateley's husband, and so on. Thus, the terminology of marriage instantly leapt into unofficial use.
No doubt in a few years everyone will be so used to it that changing the phrase "civil union" to "gay marriage" will cause no controversy at all.
The problem is that we use the word "marriage" to describe two different things.
The first definition of marriage is largely a religious one. Most people get married as part of some sort of religious ceremony. The religious body in question sets the definition of who qualifies for marriage under it's auspices. Given the huge array of different religions and sects, I'm sure there are just as many different standards regarding marriage. Government should not be allowed in any way to favor marriages of certain religions over those of others, no more than it should favor any religion's ceremonies over any others.
The second definition of marriage is the legal one - which involves nothing more than two people entering into a contract to share property. I would argue that any two people who wish to share property should be allowed to do so. If a whole group of people want to share property, that should be fine as well. The government's main interest here involves sorting out what happens when people sharing property no longer wish to do so (divorces, separations etc). Government can then make laws regarding any people who enter such contracts, just as long as no religious discrimination is involved.