Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
...what?Stark wrote:This logic is awesome. Be happy with your discriminatory exclusion from the club of a concept as old as human civilisation! The name's not important, which is why it's so important to keep YOU GAY PEOPLE out of it!CaptainChewbacca wrote: I asked this earlier; what protections are present in a marriage contract in California that aren't present in civil unions?
Equality.CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm trying to figure out what 'Marriage' gives that civil unions don't.
If gays are discriminated against less then black people, it's not for lack of trying. The difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is a private affair, while being black means....being visibly different. Given the overlap in trying to keep out the "undesirables" with gay marriage and miscegenation laws, it's difficult to argue that homophobia isn't the toxic sibling of racism.Why indeed quibble? Because it IS symbolic, and it's an important symbol to many people who believe that it should maintain its traditional definition. I'm aware that these arguments are the same, by and large, as the ones that were used to advocate racial segregation but I believe that the comparison ends there. There are no "gay only" stores, "straight only" lunch counters, or anything of the like. As you said, it's a symbolic preference on my part and I don't believe that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does anything to reduce anyone's constitutional rights or demote their welfare.
Do me a quick favor, please - it won't take long at all - and look up the arguments used against miscenegation. Then compare them with the arguments you've used or heard in favor of Proposition 8.Kodiak wrote:I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.
So does this mean that you think divorce should be forbidden and that divorcees shouldn't be allowed to remarry?Kodiak wrote: I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.
More's the point - they SHOULD be fucking sued and have their tax-exempt status taken away if they refuse to cease their illegal descrimination. And such churches are "hate groups", so it's not exactly unfair to classify them so.Guardsman Bass wrote:If one of these groups seriously made it an issue (which is unlikely - there weren't a rush of lawsuits by gay couples to force churches to recognize these marriages when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, or when Canada did it). Besides, what type of gay couple is seriously going to want to be married in a church that absolutely loathes them?Perhaps you're not aware that any church which does NOT recognize same-sex marriages could be classified as a "hate group" and sued? This would cause hundreds of churches to either compromise their beliefs or lose tax-exempt status.
I'd also be in favor of seeing this in the Colosseum for these (delightfully phrased) reasons. That section has been dormant for a long time, Kodiak has volunteered for his half, and Alyrium (among other motivated posters) have already stepped up for opposition.Covenant wrote:At least the Foodamentalists wouldn't be able to claim that they didn't get a fair, one-on-one chance to debate their point of view against the Catheists and the other Catfood Progressives. It is probably a foregone conclusion, this is hardly a heavy-hitter style of debate. An appeal to tradition isn't something you can go to war on.
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) - PeZookQuick comment on this, churches in most states don't hand out marriage licenses to my knowledge, that's a function of the state. In some areas(Vegas) churches are one stop shopping for a legal recognized marriage paperwork. But most states(Having helped with a few) even if you have a Bishop, a Rabbi, a Minister an Imam, a Shinto and Buddiest Priest all witness your wedding, it does not make it legal until you go down to the local court-house and apply for and get your marriage certificate.Hillary wrote:
More's the point - they SHOULD be fucking sued and have their tax-exempt status taken away if they refuse to cease their illegal descrimination. And such churches are "hate groups", so it's not exactly unfair to classify them so.
One of the big things you're missing is recognition of privileges across state lines. Most states don't have to do squat as far as acknowledging civil unions from other states, so if you ever have to move or something happens to your partner while they're traveling you can kiss your benefits from that goodbye.Mr Bean wrote: Now lets exam real quick what befits "Marriage" gives you
Tax and Joint Filing rights
Heath Insurance Rights/Privliages
Inheritance and Death Benefits
Visitant rights in Hospital and Prison
Positives when looking to Adopt
Pluses when looking for loans, home lines of credit.
Better unemployment payments if one of you cares for the other
Well the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act nullifies that part with marriages(or at least gay ones...). However it is also blatantly unconstitutional, violating both the 14th amendment, and the full faith and credit clause. Problem is, a gay person has to be married before they will have standing to challenge itGeneral Zod wrote:One of the big things you're missing is recognition of privileges across state lines. Most states don't have to do squat as far as acknowledging civil unions from other states, so if you ever have to move or something happens to your partner while they're traveling you can kiss your benefits from that goodbye.Mr Bean wrote: Now lets exam real quick what befits "Marriage" gives you
Tax and Joint Filing rights
Heath Insurance Rights/Privliages
Inheritance and Death Benefits
Visitant rights in Hospital and Prison
Positives when looking to Adopt
Pluses when looking for loans, home lines of credit.
Better unemployment payments if one of you cares for the other
Ok, so after hearing new arguments in this thread and ignoring the hissy-fit tirades (sorry, but there were too many to read through) I have come to a conclusion: I cannot support prop 8 as I believe it contradicts the intention of the US Constitution and is morally indefensible. You might ask "Doesn't your religion urge you to vote in favor of prop 8?" It has, on a large scale, and it is part of the ProtectMarriage.org coalition. I feel that I must vote my beliefs on this one, however, even when they break with the church.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act nullifies that part with marriages(or at least gay ones...). However it is also blatantly unconstitutional, violating both the 14th amendment, and the full faith and credit clause. Problem is, a gay person has to be married before they will have standing to challenge itGeneral Zod wrote:One of the big things you're missing is recognition of privileges across state lines. Most states don't have to do squat as far as acknowledging civil unions from other states, so if you ever have to move or something happens to your partner while they're traveling you can kiss your benefits from that goodbye.Mr Bean wrote: Now lets exam real quick what befits "Marriage" gives you
Tax and Joint Filing rights
Heath Insurance Rights/Privliages
Inheritance and Death Benefits
Visitant rights in Hospital and Prison
Positives when looking to Adopt
Pluses when looking for loans, home lines of credit.
Better unemployment payments if one of you cares for the other
PRFYNAFBTFCP Are we all so shocked to think that people cannot be swayed by intelligent discourse? I've never been so arrogant (probably someone will produce proof that I have beenAlyrium Denryle wrote:Did hell just...get cold? Someone changed their position on the internet. I don't know what to say.
) to say that I'm an authority on everything I talk about and that I will never change my mind. What can I say, except that I learned new things, saw new perspectives, and what I saw and learned changed my mind. PRFYNAFBTFCP Kodiak wrote:Are we all so shocked to think that people cannot be swayed by intelligent discourse? I've never been so arrogant (probably someone will produce proof that I have beenAlyrium Denryle wrote:Did hell just...get cold? Someone changed their position on the internet. I don't know what to say.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act nullifies that part with marriages(or at least gay ones...). However it is also blatantly unconstitutional, violating both the 14th amendment, and the full faith and credit clause. Problem is, a gay person has to be married before they will have standing to challenge it
That's probably one of the most compelling/effective arguments for the religious right: "Gay marriage: it's better for the economy". I'm curious though, how exactly did the baptists "discover" this newfound insight?The Yosemite Bear wrote:oh, fuck NO!
I shall vote against this prop, I encourage others to vote against this prop. We just had a gay & Lesbian Double wedding last week, and even the baptists have in Mariposia have discovered that gay guys with two male incomes mean a decent amount of money during the new hard times.
PRFYNAFBTFCP See, I dont see it that way. When I real it, and maybe I am nitpicking the language too much, I see it as congress has the authority to regulate the manner in which such documents are recognized, but does not give congress the authority to create exceptions (IE. to say that X document is invalid state to state) and even if they had that authority, they applied that power in an inequitable fashion, and the results did the same thing, thus creating a second 14th amendment violation (the first being the states denying gay marriage in the first place)Just a minor nitpick as while DOMA certainly violates the 14th amendment it almost cannot (as a function) violate the full faith and credit clause as the same clause grants Congress the ability to regulate the manner in which such cross-state recognition shall take place. That is that Congress is granted the explicit power to control the manner in which court records and judgements (and marriage is a matter of court records) are recognized between the states.
Just so the bystanders don't have to go looking I'm gonna put the text up real quick:Alyrium Denryle wrote:See, I dont see it that way. When I real it, and maybe I am nitpicking the language too much, I see it as congress has the authority to regulate the manner in which such documents are recognized, but does not give congress the authority to create exceptions (IE. to say that X document is invalid state to state) and even if they had that authority, they applied that power in an inequitable fashion, and the results did the same thing, thus creating a second 14th amendment violation (the first being the states denying gay marriage in the first place)Just a minor nitpick as while DOMA certainly violates the 14th amendment it almost cannot (as a function) violate the full faith and credit clause as the same clause grants Congress the ability to regulate the manner in which such cross-state recognition shall take place. That is that Congress is granted the explicit power to control the manner in which court records and judgements (and marriage is a matter of court records) are recognized between the states.
The critical segment is actually the very last little bit where it says "and the effect thereof." Now we could certainly argue that it doesnt' actually give congress the ability to restrict the application of certain public records over another but then we run into the nature of rulings in terms of Congres' power. A direct reading of the constitution would seem to allow no means by which Congress could have created the Civil Rights Act but a rather liberal interpretation of the commerce clause was used as it has been before and since. The poitn being that a long history of judical review has given weight to the idea that congress is granted a great deal of discretion in terms of defining for itself the limits of its pwoer except where explicitly forbidden. Yes you could argue against it but you would be going againt 200 plus years of judicial tradition. That is why I tend to think (though don't like) that a competent court would rule that congress has the right to determine the effects of marriage legisltion in the various states and create a means by which it shall be applied that excludes homosexual marriages.Article IV Section 1 wrote: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.
I can see no means by which a logical argument could be made that creating a eperate "civil union" legal structure ensures an equl grant of rights to all citizens. Denying marriage to gay couples purely on terms of defining marriage as between a man and a woman alone is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment.14th Amendment Section 1 wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
Ohma wrote:You have made my day a happy one, thank you very much.
Is it all right with you if I quote that "you're just voting the way you are because the thought of a cock thrusting back and forth in your ass and making your own cock hard from the stimulation to your prostate is scaring the hell out of you." bit in my sig?
...though it occurs to me that it may not work as well out of context but what the hey!
