About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Huntard writes:

quote:

---

It's just a title, what does this matter, as long as they have the same rights?

---

How many times do we have to learn the lesson of "separate but equal" before it sticks?By having two contracts, you necessarily draw a legal distinction between them no matter how much you insist they are the same. In every single jurisdiction that has tried to have the "separate but equal" fiction that is called "civil union," it has failed to be equal. There are always rights overlooked, there are always extra hoops that have to be jumped through.By having a separate contract, you make a legal distinction between them which will eventually get exploited and thus defeat the entire claim that they are equal. The only way to ensure equality is to have a single contract that applies to everybody.

quote:

---

If people "marry" by law, they should ALL get equal rights. People who ONLY "marry" by churches shouldn't get those rights, churches aren't governments.

---

But that's the way it currently is. You are only married in the eyes of the law if you sign the contract given to you by the clerk. Religious officials (and ship's captains and a host of other non-governmental officials) are given the power to act as state agents in registering the documents, but that is as a convenience. The ceremony in front of the altar and before all your family and friends, well, that's very nice. You don't actually get married until you go back into the office and sign that little piece of paper.

quote:

---

In my country, people can either marry by law and by the church, or only by law.

---

See, here, the only way to get married is by the law. You can have whatever ceremony you want with your church, but it doesn't mean a thing with regard to the law.Here in the US, divorce is legal. The Catholic Church is free not to recognize the legal status of divorce and can refuse to marry divorcees all they wish, but the law doesn't care. People who are divorced are not married and are free to marry again. They can't force themselves into a Catholic church to get married, but marriage isn't about the church. It's about the law and you aren't married unless you sign a piece of paper.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Then what would you have to whine about if neither California's Supreme Court nor SCOTUS overturned Prop.8? Would you prefer a government that operates on the principle of minority opinion rules? Now what do they call those kinds of governments, again? I'm trying to recall.Tra-la-la.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

I want a government that rules with equality, regardless of people's opinions.

---

I hunt for the truth

Fosdick responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So when the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virignia, they were wrong to do so?

---

​

Then what would you have to whine about if neither California's Supreme Court nor SCOTUS overturned Prop.8?

---

That's not an answer. Let's try again, shall we?When the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, they were wrong to do so? How many times do I need to ask this very simple question before you answer it?

quote:

---

Would you prefer a government that operates on the principle of minority opinion rules?

---

So the Constitution means nothing? If we were to get 50% + 1 of the people to vote that we had the legal right to make you my slave, you wouldn't complain at all? The vote was all nice and legal, right?Answer the question, please:When the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, they were wrong to do so?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

How about just a government that operates on the principles of human equality?How about a government that operates freely without religious prejudice?Now, what do they call that type of government again...? Oh yeah, non-existant. lol

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Ah, what was the SCOTUS vote on that, again? If the majority vote ruled then I'm fer it. If the minority vote ruled then I'm agin it. Seems only fair to me...just the way the American democratic system works. Somebody's got to interpret the U.S. Constitution, and we might yet get to see if SCOTUS overturns Prop. 8 on its constitutionality. I can abide with that.But I'll tell you what. If SCOTUS ever overturned Rove v. Wade then I'm in the street the very next day to support a real cause worth marching for.Carry on. Toodles.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

But, onfire, you presume that "gay marriage" (an oxymoron in the face tradition) is an issue of human equality. You want to see the government legislate for homosexuality. Not everyone sees "gay marriage" as a human-rights issue. You know, there are other issues on the table involving human equality, as perceived by their respective plaintiffs. For example, there are those who believe that polygamy is a human-rights issue, too. So why not go out and march for their cause? (Hey, you might dig the Mormon chicks.)Correct answer: Because it is only a matter of human opinion and not a matter of human equality.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

And I respect your opinion on this matter.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

What ever happened to "carry on without me"?

A little push back here, Taz."Equality" never was about "equality of outcome." It is about "equality of opportunity" or better yet the equal right to take advantage (or not) of the opportunities presented. In other words, it is about everyone having an equal right to fail.We are not there, yet, and this thread is proof. Gays should have every right to fail at marriage that the rest of us enjoy. ABE: Being a "Technocrat" (old nerd) I take solace in the milestone reached on this my 256th contribution to this forum.Edited by AZPaul3, : I'm easily entertained by minutia.

I felt some bullets on my backside and I had to come back and shoot it out. Now, who would shoot a person in the back?”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

No, I believe that exclusion on the basis of sexual preference is an issue of human equality, or rather human inequality. Doesn't matter, are any of those people gay? How would those people be affected? Frankly, those people can go fuck off, what business is it of theirs? I have no problem personally with polygamy. I could careless what that particular sect of the Mormon faith does. Why should anyone else care? However, if you can present evidence where harm has been done because of polygamy, then of course I'd side with the evidence. How was this the correct answer? lolIt is a matter of inequality. It is exclusion by one group of people towards another group of people, that makes it a human rights issue. If one group has a particular right, then another group living within the same society, abiding by the same laws and standards as all others within the society do, should have equal rights.The fact that one group would exclude the other group on the basis of sexual preference makes it a violation of those rights that should be awarded to all those within that society.Unless you feel that gays should be excluded from our society as well...?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I never said equality is about equality of outcome. It's about the choices that are available. I'm inclined to go back to my example of the public school system. Some southern states got rid of their public school systems completely to avoid desegregation. Technically, every student in their states, regardless of racial background, had the same opportunity to not be educated by public fundings.By taking out marriage and replace it with a half-cooked concept of "civil union", we are essentially doing what the southern states did with their public school system.Like I said before, marriage goes beyond the 1,000+ rights in the law book. There are just too many cultural and social features built into marriage that you, I, and literally hundreds of millions of others have enjoyed for the last 250 years in this nation, let alone other places in other parts of history. Because it is so ingrained in our cultural and social systems, marriage is a right that EVERYONE ought to have the opportunity to enjoy (or despise if you want to put it that way).If I did anything right in my lifetime, it's that I'd decided to marry the woman I love. I wouldn't trade our marriage for anything in this world. For those that have expressed your despise for marriages and divorces, god bless your souls if you see it that way. But just because you don't value marriage as much as some of us do why do you insist on imposing this belittlement on everyone else?

If you weren't there, how could any of my bullets possibly hit your backside? I took "carry on without me" to mean something like "screw you guys, I'm not reading this anymore..."

Hardly. I support civil unions for gays”give them everything that married people get. So, what is wrong with my opinion that marriage means a civil union between one man and one woman? Furthermore, I do not seek to exclude any gays from my meaning of marriage, they are as entitled to as I am. But if two of them want to get civilly united under the law I have no objection to that.I'm afraid it comes down to the meanings of "marriage" and "equality." And I'm afraid there are no humanly equal opinions on those meanings. It's a no-way-out-deal, unless we get the government out of the business of marriage. Let the churches decide. I don't care what they do, except for torturing chickens.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.