leejo

"Marriage" and the civil contractual relationship between two individuals have always used the same word because the two ideas have never been in conflict before. Now they are, so we need a new term to differentiate between the religious ceremony and the civil union. If there is a way to extend the civil liberties my wife and I enjoy to my good friends who are gay without also offending millions of people who I believe have just as much to right to practice their religions as my friends have a right to enter into this contractual arrangement, then I am all for that.

You don't care for God or religion or all of that and that's certainly your right. But you also agree that other people have the right to practice religion - at least I hope you agree that the Constitution guarantees the right to practice religion - without the state usurping their rites to further its own social engineering projects - eliminating religion or at least keeping it in it's proper laughable place in this case. The fact is that a "civil union" between homosexuals is antithetical to "marriage" in many religions. It would be as if the state decided to call abortion "baptism".

It is NOT the state's job to force me or anyone else to accept homosexuality any more than it is the state's job to force us all to like other races or midgets or punk rock. It IS the state's job to ensure that people have the same access to the law regardless of their race, creed, or gender. So why do you have a problem with explicitly confining the state's interests in a manner that is respectful to religion?

CingularDuality

Because it's not possible. And equality for all is more important than playing around with words in order to be respectful towards religion.

If there were less things in society that were written/designed specifically for a marriage, then it might be different. But as we've seen over and over, a civil union is not a marriage, does not have the same rights as a marriage, and does not have the same benefits as a marriage.

If a simple law could be written that says civil unions have to be treated the same as a marriage in EVERY way, I'd be cool with that. Getting hung up on a word is silly. Let the bible beaters have their word. It's what the word means that matters, and if gays can have a new word that means the same thing...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

Is it? I know that's your opinion but what's the basis in law? I'm relying on the first amendment to the constitution for my position. If you are prepared to argue that homosexual marriage represented "equality for all" to the framers, I'd love to see the evidence that supports that argument. As far as I can tell, the notion that two men should live in matrimonial bliss is a relatively recent development in the US legal world.

How so? Are you going to talk about power of attorney again? Because that's a dead issue. I AM married to my wife and credit card companies STILL will not talk to me about certain details of our account if she's the primary. I can't call up her doctor and demand her medical files in all cases. The State cannot compel a private business to recognize a durable power of attorney, but the State cannot compel a private business to recognize a marriage either. Again, you seem to be confusing the social and the legal.

OK I'm a little tired of your insults about religion. I am not a Bible Beater any more than a homosexual is a Fag. And don't forget Quran beaters, Torah beaters, etc. Back off with the slurs, por favor. I attempt to discuss these issue with you respectfully and in return you hand me "bible beater"? Come on, Cing.

Irregardless, "getting hung up on a word" is a lot of what the law "is".

Buckets

So I was going to let it rest because I thought the thread was going to die and I have a hard time talking about this issue without being inflammatory but since it is still going on strong...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

That is the definition, according to the dictionary, of a bigot. If you can explain to me how a person who opposes this ruling is not intolerantly devoted to their own prejudices and how seeking to deprive a group of people of basic rights is not intolerant by it's very nature, I might be willing to think about whether or not my use of the term is "lazy or dumb". When you throw out terms like "lazy, dishonest or dumb", it is usually best to have something more than sentiment to back it up with.

If you want to talk about lazy arguments, we can have a field day with this one. The original intention of the framers has very little to do with our interpretation of the constitution at this point in time, ESPECIALLY when it relates to civil rights. When the Constitution was written, slavery was still a legal and widely accepted practice and women were expected to exist completely in the domestic sphere. Over time, the term "equality" has evolved to more or less encompass these groups of people, even though it was never the intent of the framers. Its hard for me to see how an argument based on what you think might have represented equality to the framers of the Constitution is supposed to hold any water when it is pretty clear that the world in which they existed simply doesn't exist any longer. As society has changed and become more tolerant, the term "equality" has been redefined, both legally and in the general vernacular. The current debate over homosexual rights is simply the next step in this process of redefinition.

__________________
The artist formerly known as "pecker"

leejo

Well I guess I can only reply that if you're not willing to calm down and think hard for a few minutes yourself about how this might be, you're either dumb or lazy. Are you suggesting that 4 of 9 members of the California Supreme Court are gay-bashing bible thumpers? That's a convenient position, but not one that demonstrates much intelligence or deep thought.

No THAT is a lazy argument, ESPECIALLY when you consider that the majority of sitting US Supreme Court justices disagree with you. You may lazilly and stupidly call them bigots or whatever, but the fact is that books could be written about the gulf between your understanding of law and theirs. Too bad for you they have the JDs, the experience, the votes, and the lifetime appointments confirmed by the Senate. Help me understand why your thoughts on this matter should carry more weight than theirs.

Another typically lazy and liberal interpretation of the constitution. Freedom of speech is a right that wanders in and out of relevance based on current fashion? Or is it a right that endures? How about due process? Does that right change over time. Can we "redefine" that, or does it mean something?

For you, the amendments and the intent of the constitution are not nearly as important is it meaning what YOU want it to mean today.

Call me names. Since I disagree with you, call me a bigot. Say I'm a gay-hating bible thumper. Whatever if that makes you feel smart and better about yourself. Hell call me a hick while you're so full of indignation over people who slander groups you like.

El_Gringo_Grande

@leejo

I have a problem with religion having a problem with this.

Some in the religious community work very hard to get their beliefs worked into the law so really it is their fault. If they would work at keeping church and state truly separate this and other issues would not arise.

And how would recognizing same sex couples impinge on their rights? They don't have to marry the couple. They don't even have to recognize it within the church. They don't even have to let a same sex married couple into the church if they don't want to.

And you are right, private businesses do not have to recognize married couples of any type. All the court ruling does, if it stands, is force them to not discriminate between a same sex marriage and a traditional one if they do make special provisions for a marriage. It would make it very difficult to them to discriminate between two guys, two girls or a guy and a girl.

What is the harm?

Now I do concede it would make it very hard for religious organizations to maintain the status quo. How do you explain to a child that the law recognizes a gay marriage and the church doesn't? I can see many questions coming up and over the short term much turmoil among it's members. I can also see that most religious organisations would eventually make accomodations or go the way of the snake handlers. They would still be around but be very isolated.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

And, like any other citizens, religious people have the right to elect representatives who they believe will represent their interests. Separation of church and state - well first of all that's not in the constitution, that's an interpretation that has been developed and perpetuated - is not the same thing as asserting that the state is prohibited from passing laws that religious people seek and support.

I agree with this, but I also think that the decision and the posters in this thread are decidedly HOSTILE to organized religion, so I think you can also argue that the state has failed to live up to its responsibility under the first amendment here. Certainly all efforts to have a compromise that didn't usurp this religious ceremony and state have been sneered at.

Not exactly. It prohibits the state from discriminating between hetero and same-sex couples. Private businessman and bible-thumper Joe Bob Hick can still tell them queers to get the hell off his property, and if the sheriff shows up, Job Bob is legally in the right, repulsive as his position may be.

You just did! The Amish explain such matters to their children all the time. Why can't I wear a zipper daddy? Why can't I listen to R. Kelly daddy? What's wrong with Girls Gone Wild daddy? If the president can lie under oath about the affair he conducted in the white house, why can't I daddy?

After all, what about their beliefs is worth protecting or fighting for?

Can we all agree that the ideal solution is not to redefine the constitution but rather to amend the constitution? An amendment that supplements the 14th and 15th amendments by extending the rights described in those amendments to homosexuals would end all debate forever. Strictly speaking, the question before the courts isn't whether or not gay marriage is ok but whether or not the states have the right to make it legal or illegal.

But getting back to my original concern, and your main question, don't you at least agree that it's interesting that so many who seem so strongly to believe in equality for all aren't interested in organized religion's concerns on this subject and are hostile to a compromise that addresses their concerns? Would you feel the muslims were being silly if the government passed a law that declared all USDA pork-processing inspectors "Quran Specialists"? Yes Muslims would not be forced to eat pork, no they wouldn't have to let pigs into their mosques. It's just a word. But it's a new meaning of the word that is decidedly hostile to their traditions and beliefs. People like Cing and Buckets belie this hostility with regard to religions' desire to keep "marriage" "sacred".