Originally posted by newdad27Segregation in the South was a "bed rock tradition" there for centuries, too. You've yet to make a coherent argument that allowing more people to marry "devalues" marriage. Perhaps you could start by saying what you mean by "devalue".
compelling state reason? how about changing a bed rock tradition in America for centuries. The main fabric of a stable society is the family which you hurt when you de-value marriage.
Originally posted by newdad27There is a very, very good reason to change the laws. So far you have presented yourself as the kind of person with a sincere interest in survival of others so here's a hypothetical:
you both are being too short sighted because of your social agenda. You don't take into account the un-intended consequences. First, there is no good reason to change the definition that has existed forever for marriage. Civil unions, fine, but there is no reason to change the definition of marriage. Because someone chooses to be a homosexual does not m ...[text shortened]... circumvent the will of the people thru activist judges. Is that what your idea of America is?
A woman with a child hooks up with another woman. Their relationship is not recognized under law however they live together and financially depend on their combined incomes. Both women intimately care for the daughter however the other woman cannot legally adopt the child.
Say one of them dies.
1. The mother: the child returns to next of kin (or possibly becomes ward of the State). It is very unlikely that the bereaved girlfriend will be able to obtain custody of the child - even though they may have togather for over a decade and be the closest thing to a parent that the child knows.
2. The girlfriend dies: The mother cannot receive bereavement or widow-stipends. Since she relied on the girlfriend's income as well, the standard of living diminishes (possible ramifications for the child i.e. can't go to college).
In either example how was this child benefited?
Since most proponents of the family are interested in the well-being of the child, it seems compelling to legally acknowledge same-sex relationships when there is a child involved.
1 edit
Originally posted by newdad27So when did you choose to be hetero? Was it when you were a baby, a teenager or did you make that choice when you looked at your anatomy just then?
it's an absurd question. Look at your anatomy and tell me how it could not be a choice.
Did you screw you eyes closed, tilt your head side-ways and then mutter to yourself, 'i will be a hetero...I will be a hetero'?
Was it a spontaneous decision? Or was it a long, drawn-out process?
Did you make a crude diagram representing all the outcomes of each decision and then make a complicated calculation of cost-benefit analysis to decide that heterosexuality was a more feasible life-style?
Why do gays "choose" to be gay then? Are they just bad at maths? Did they flunk economics?
Or perhaps its not a choice. No?
EDIT: There are evn clergy who admit to being gay - non practising though. They claim that they did not "choose".
Originally posted by no1marauderI was meaning that on this site that most people do not oppose giving same-sex relationships equl rights. It seems to me that most oppose giving them the status of "marriage". But if we define marriage as something between man and woman, and civil union as something between same-sexes, and both civil unions and marriages are equal, then I think many gays will be content.
About 1/3 or more in the polls oppose civil unions in the United States. And many gays do care whether their legal relationships are considered equal to those of heterosexuals, in name as well as law.
I however believe that gays should strive for marriage just to upset newdad27 and so that civil marriages are looked down upon.
Originally posted by Conrau KDefine "many". Would interracial couples be satisfied with having their marriages defined as "civil unions"? Or would they see it as an attempt to discredit their relationships and treat them as inferior (in name only perhaps but that would still have a intended stigma)?How about people who can't have children?
I was meaning that on this site that most people do not oppose giving same-sex relationships equl rights. It seems to me that most oppose giving them the status of "marriage". But if we define marriage as something between man and woman, and civil union as something between same-sexes, and both civil unions and marriages are equal, then I think many ...[text shortened]... d strive for marriage just to upset newdad27 and so that civil marriages are looked down upon.
Again, marriage in the legal sense is a contract between individuals that grants benefits and incurs obligations. It seems rather silly to grant the identical benefits and obligations to the same contract but call it something different. And it is simple invidious discrimination to do so because you don't like a certain group.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, N1M, but do you think this should be a federal issue?
Define "many". Would interracial couples be satisfied with having their marriages defined as "civil unions"? Or would they see it as an attempt to discredit their relationships and treat them as inferior (in name only perhaps but that would still have a intended stigma)?How about people who can't have children?
Again, marriage in the legal sen ...[text shortened]... And it is simple invidious discrimination to do so because you don't like a certain group.
1 edit
Originally posted by Delmer??
Of course the politicians can make it a federal issue, just as they've done many times as the federal government continues to accumulate power. But do you think it SHOULD be a federal issue?
I already told you. Federal constitutional protections make this a federal issue.
-JC
Originally posted by newdad27No its not an alternative lifestyle but an alternative gender:
homosexuality is an alternative lifesytle, it is not the same as one's race. Making it a civil rights issue is where they lose credibility.
It is widely believed within academic circles that the human race is biologically, and so innately, androgenous. Within the contemporary world due to the hetronomativity template, homosexuality is out of favour and so there is a big debate when something happens, -such as a gay marriage - to question that template, when in fact homosexuality is perfectly normal and was seen as such with ancient Greek society.
(See further, Judith Butler or the Queer theory)
1 edit
Originally posted by DelmerI think the state legislatures can make their determinations as an initial matter. But if there are those who believe they are being discriminated against, then they will challenge those laws on EPC and other grounds. New York has a pending case that was just argued in front of our highest court regarding the issue that will probably be decided on state constitutional grounds. But there are states that have amended their constitutions in the last few years to effectively bar same sex marriages (some go far further and would ban civil unions as well) and I expect that sooner or later one of those cases will wind up in the US Supreme Court.
Yes, N1M, but do you think this should be a federal issue?
EDIT: According to this anti-gay marriage website, 18 states have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage and 12 of those ban civil unions as well. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/marriage_protection_amendments.php
Originally posted by no1marauderwow, i rec'd a no1m post. probably the 2nd time that's happened.
Define "many". Would interracial couples be satisfied with having their marriages defined as "civil unions"? Or would they see it as an attempt to discredit their relationships and treat them as inferior (in name only perhaps but that would still have a intended stigma)?How about people who can't have children?
Again, marriage in the legal sen ...[text shortened]... And it is simple invidious discrimination to do so because you don't like a certain group.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks. That seems like a better way to handle it than any kind of ill-fated attempt at a federal constitutional amendment, pro or con.
I think the state legislatures can make their determinations as an initial matter. But if there are those who believe they are being discriminated against, then they will challenge those laws on EPC and other grounds. New York has a pending case that was just argued in front of our highest court regarding the issue that will probably be decided on state ...[text shortened]... se ban civil unions as well. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/marriage_protection_amendments.php