Gay marriage and the law

we can play games back and forth all day about what you feel is appropriate. that doesn't change THE LAW. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

is described in the declaration of independence, which is not a government document. it is part of our national heritage, but it was not produced by the united states of america and has no binding power over american laws. sorry.however. the fact that these protections of the law are available to some citizens in some relationships with consenting adults and not all citizens in all relationships with consenting adults is sufficient to demand equal protection under the law which is a binding law of the united states of america. btw. due process of law refers to eminent domain and the confication of property or rights from those who have committed crimes. it does not mean 'except when you make laws restricting rights because of "tradition"'.

it does no good, in a discussion of law, to discuss terminology that is not binding.

message 76i'd like to see you answer this question. mr. dodge-y mc dodgerstein.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In the event that they don't see it your way, would you be satisfied with a Civil Union?

---

exactly. we need a civil union law first, so then we can say , no, this is unconstitutional. gays are already constitutionally permitted to marry, we just need the government to recognize that. that should be a case and not a new amendment stating what already is. just as much as i want an ERA, that's not the way to do it. we need a case that says "this is already the law, now follow it!" just like roe v wade.

no. absolute equality matters, and that includes traditional terminology. no body goes to a "civil unionization," they go to a wedding to witness a marriage. you are aware there are gay people without penises, right? also, sodomy is not required for homosexual male sex. nor is sodomy restricted to gay men.

no. they aren't. there are states preventing them from aquiring marriage licenses. it's not about "affirmative action". it's about enforcing the law and requiring states to allow what is already legal. just as integration had to be enforced. no. the constitution allows for marriage. marriage is equality. civil union is a bullshit attempt at "separate but equal" which is unconstitutional. why? that's what it is. it's not special laws. what if we outlawed opposite-sex marriage but legalized same-sex marriage? what if you couldn't marry a woman you were in love with, but were free to marry a man? would that satisfy you as equal? as fair? as just? no, it wouldn't. there's nothing special about being able to have your binding contract with the person you choose regardless of their gender, preference, or anatomy (which can all be distinct) recognized by the state and having your legal affairs in order as such.

Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning