Originally posted by Ushgarak
Does the term marriage actually define the rights granted?Regardless, what about those that do think they should have the same rights but not the name? They do exist.
It does, I can 'not get married' and have the same legal rights with my wife, taxes etc. etc. etc.
That's fine, they can get married for the rights, then never use the term or call it something else, be it "soul partners" or whatever. I personally never met any, but as I said before, if the powers that be had made civil unions equal to marriage in the case of rights, I doubt "gay-marriage" would be an issue.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
She doesn't think it will become meaningless because of any rights involved.
No, she thinks it will become meaningless, because of who is involved, which speaks volumes.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you want to debate the constitutionality of it all then fine, but there are many who would completely disagree with you and that view does not currently appear to be that of the US judiciary.
It is the view of a number of state judiciaries and legislatures.
And not the view of a great deal of others, so again, whilst you are trying to state it as fact, it is just your opinion- as is what you think of sabrea's motivations, which are not the issue here- personally I think you have read that all wrong. You would do better to stop wasting energy attacking those who say they want gays to have equal rights and concentrate on the issue at hand, about this whole definition of the term 'marriage'.
Rob, I am unsure your first sentence actually connects to my question, but oh well. So in that case you don't think the word 'marriage' is important
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Rob, I am unsure your first sentence actually connects to my question, but oh well. So in that case you don't think the word 'marriage' is important
Personally, I don't think the word itself is important, if it were called "drudgery", yet still provided the same rights and benefits, it would be the same to me.
That is besides the point though, a "marriage" is what is legally recognized by the state; it gives rights and privileges over those who aren't "married", and it gives more rights than those under a "civil union.".
Like I said, if the only problem the "no gay-marriage" crowd had was the use of the word itself, then civil unions would have been written up to be on par with a marriage.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think one of the major problems is that a large percentage of people that aren't generally homophobic don't think that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, for fear the children might be totally screwed up.Don't have a follow up thought...just thought I'd throw it out there.
If your point was, 'they think marriage = adoption rights', they're flawed, non-married gays can adopt.
America can be so hypocritical sometimes.. we claim to be a land of freedom and choices yet when someone chooses their lifestyle (homosexual) they are criticized and said to be immoral and wrong. IMO, the only reason people claim homosexuality to be wrong is because somewhere in history some one said its gross and shouldn't be done, so now the masses believe it. Its sad that people are ashamed to be homosexual because they are afraid of the repercussions for admitting they are. We need to respect the choices, whether it be religion, sexuality or any of the likes. I, myself am agnostic but not going to say taht anyone else is wrong for actually believing and I'm quite straight but i don't believe gays are wrong for choosing that. Earlier in the post, someone said that dogs licking each other is natural but he Inst going to do it.. well that's your own personal opinion, that doesn't make it naturally right or wrong. humans are just as much an animal as a wolf or an elephant, we sleep we eat, we reproduce, and we do things that may not seem right or natural, but that doesn't necessarily make it "unnatural"
Originally posted by shaynebmxxx
America can be so hypocritical sometimes.. we claim to be a land of freedom and choices yet when someone chooses their lifestyle (homosexual) they are criticized and said to be immoral and wrong. IMO, the only reason people claim homosexuality to be wrong is because somewhere in history some one said its gross and shouldn't be done, so now the masses believe it. Its sad that people are ashamed to be homosexual because they are afraid of the repercussions for admitting they are. We need to respect the choices, whether it be religion, sexuality or any of the likes. I, myself am agnostic but not going to say taht anyone else is wrong for actually believing and I'm quite straight but i don't believe gays are wrong for choosing that. Earlier in the post, someone said that dogs licking each other is natural but he Inst going to do it.. well that's your own personal opinion, that doesn't make it naturally right or wrong. humans are just as much an animal as a wolf or an elephant, we sleep we eat, we reproduce, and we do things that may not seem right or natural, but that doesn't necessarily make it "unnatural"
Homosexual being a "choice", isn't a fact; it's highly debatable.
Would you lick yourself, like a dog, if you could?
Originally posted by shaynebmxxx
America can be so hypocritical sometimes.. we claim to be a land of freedom and choices yet when someone chooses their lifestyle (homosexual) they are criticized and said to be immoral and wrong. IMO, the only reason people claim homosexuality to be wrong is because somewhere in history some one said its gross and shouldn't be done, so now the masses believe it. Its sad that people are ashamed to be homosexual because they are afraid of the repercussions for admitting they are. We need to respect the choices, whether it be religion, sexuality or any of the likes. I, myself am agnostic but not going to say taht anyone else is wrong for actually believing and I'm quite straight but i don't believe gays are wrong for choosing that. Earlier in the post, someone said that dogs licking each other is natural but he Inst going to do it.. well that's your own personal opinion, that doesn't make it naturally right or wrong. humans are just as much an animal as a wolf or an elephant, we sleep we eat, we reproduce, and we do things that may not seem right or natural, but that doesn't necessarily make it "unnatural"
What part of Phoenix are you from?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And not the view of a great deal of others, so again, whilst you are trying to state it as fact, it is just your opinion . . .
Really? The following is a list of the court decisions made with regard to same-sex marriage in the past five years:
[list][*]18 Nov 03: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that the state constitution guarantees equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
[*]02 Feb 04: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answers the Senate that civil unions would be considered unconstitutional.
[*]12 Feb 04: San Francisco, CA—Mayor Gavin Newsome authorizes city officials to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
[*]20 Feb 04: Sandoval County, NM—The County Clerk issues marriage licenses to same sex couples.
[*]27 Feb 04: New Paltz, NY—Mayor Jason West begins performing same sex marriages.
[*]01 Mar 04: Ithaca, NY—Mayor Carolyn Peterson begins accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples.
[*]03 Mar 04: Multnomah County, OR—The County Attorney issues a legal opinion that the county rules preventing same-sex couples from applying for marriage licenses violates the state constitution; Chairwoman Diane Linn orders the rules changed, and marriage licenses are issued to same sex couples.
[*]03 Mar 04: New York, NY—Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issues the opinion that same-sex marriages from other states must be recognized in New York.
[*]08 Mar 04: Seattle, WA—Mayor Greg Nickels signs an executive order that the city shall recognize same-sex marriages among municipal workers, and extend to them all the benefits of heterosexual spouses.
[*]08 Mar 04: Asbury, NJ—Deputy Mayor James Bruno solemnizes the marriage of two men who applied for a license.
[*]09 Mar 04: San Jose, CA—The city council votes to offer identical benefits to all married city employees, extending better benefits to married same-sex employees than were available under the city’s domestic partnership registry.
[*]20 Apr 04: The California Assembly Judiciary Committee passes a bill that would allow same-sex marriage.
[*]26 Apr 04: The Massachusetts Governor’s top legal counsel tells state justices of the peace to resign if they are unwilling to officiate at same-sex marriages.
[*]13 May 04: A federal judge rules against the plaintiffs in a Massachusetts case seeking to block same-sex marriage.
[*]14 May 04: The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to block same-sex marriage.
[*]14 May 04: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to block municipal clerks in Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to same sex-couples.
[*]15 May 04: Phoenix, AZ—Three pastors marry 40 same-sex couples in an act of civil disobedience.
[*]17 May 04: Same-sex couples begin marrying in Massachusetts
[*]13 Jul 04: Takoma Park, MD—The City Council unanimously passes a resolution in favor of same-sex marriage.
[*]13 Jul 04: New Paltz, NY—The town justice drops all charges against ministers who performed same-sex marriages for couples with no licenses.
[*]14 Jul 04: The U.S. Senate votes to block a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
[*]04 Aug 04: King County, WA—A Superior Court judge rules the state’s Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
[*]17 Aug 04: Tacoma, WA—A federal judge rules the federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional.
[*]07 Sep 04: Thurston County, WA—A Superior Court judge rules that the state ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
[*]10 Sep 04: A New York Supreme Court justice rejects the idea of invalidating more than 250 same-sex marriages performed in the state.
[*]30 Sep 04: The U.S. House of Representatives vote against a federal constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage.
[*]05 Oct 04: A Louisiana District Judge nullifies a recently adopted constitutional amendment, ruling the issue was not properly and legally presented to voters.
[*]29 Nov 04: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear case aimed at overturning the Massachusetts law that legalized same-sex marriage.
[*]04 Feb 05: A New York Supreme Court justice rules that a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, concluding the right to marry the person of one's choosing is both a privacy right and a liberty right.
[*]14 Mar 05: A California Superior Court judge rules that the state ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, writing "the state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
[*]15 Apr 05: New York City becomes the sixth locality in the state of New York after Brighton, Buffalo, Ithaca, Nyack, and Rochester to announce it will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
[*]01 May 05: Navajo President Joe Shirley, Jr. vetos a measure to ban same-sex marriage.
[*]02 May 05: A Federal Court strikes down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution.
[*]September 05: The California legislature becomes first legislative body in U.S. to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage without a court order.
[*]October 05: The Alaska Supreme Court rules that state and municipal governments must provide the same benefits to the same-sex partners of employees that the spouses of employees receive.
[*]January 06: The Maryland Circuit Court rules that the state law banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory and "cannot withstand constitutional challenge
[*]October 06: The New Jersey Supreme Court orders the legislature to expand marriage to include same-sex couples.
[*]November 06: A proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage solely as a union between a man and woman fails in Arizona.
[*]February 07: The Rhode Island Attorney General issues a legal opinion allowing the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, saying that the state prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.
[*]June 07: Massachusetts legislators pass legislation preventing a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage from being placed on the ballot.
[*]August 07: Polk County, IA—A judge overturns the state law banning same-sex marriage and orders the county recorder to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
[*]September 07: The Maryland Supreme Court overturns a lower-court decision ruling that same-sex couples do not have the right to marry. [/list]
Originally posted by Ushgarak
. . . as is what you think of sabrea's motivations, which are not the issue here- personally I think you have read that all wrong.
You would be the only one. Her position on the issue is apparent to all.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You would do better to stop wasting energy attacking those who say they want gays to have equal rights . . .
You would do better to stop defending her, and allow her to speak for herself.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
. . . and concentrate on the issue at hand, about this whole definition of the term 'marriage'.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown v. The Board of Education that all Americans are guaranteed equal access to the same institutions by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In short, "separate but equal" institutions—in this case, marriage for opposite couples, and civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples—is unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown v. The Board of Education that all Americans are guaranteed equal access to the same institutions by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In short, "separate but equal" institutions—in this case, marriage for opposite couples, and civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples—is unconstitutional.
You know what the loophole is in that one in regards to gays and marriage... "Gays have the right to marry, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex." Not saying I agree, or that it isn't a weasel-like, dishonest and insulting stance, but there you have it.
On the flip-side, if a law passed where an Asian (or other) could marry, as long as they only married another Asian, then that would be automatically labeled "unconstitutional."
Originally posted by Robtard
You know what the loophole is in that one in regards to gays and marriage... "Gays have the right to marry, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex." Not saying I agree, or that it isn't a weasel-like, dishonest and insulting stance, but there you have it.On the flip-side, if a law passed where an Asian (or other) could marry, as long as they only married another Asian, then that would be automatically labeled "unconstitutional."
Prior to 1967, it was argued that black Americans and white Americans also had equal marriage rights; a black person could marry a black person, and a white person could marry a white person, they simply could not marry one another.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEIt's slightly different. Cause those actually are different rights. Today we have equal rights for each gender. What we are actually arguing for is equal rights for women and men.
Prior to 1967, it was argued that black Americans and white Americans also had equal marriage rights; a black person could marry a black person, and a white person could marry a white person, they simply could not marry one another.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's slightly different. Cause those actually are different rights. Today we have equal rights for each gender. What we are actually arguing for is equal rights for women and men.
Black and white Americans having the "equal" right to marry a person of the same race is logically equivocal to gay Americans having the "equal" right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Originally posted by RobtardIt is factually different though.
Y-yes, it is. It comes down to the rights of a consenting adult, gender shouldn't be a factor.That's like me telling you, you can marry any woman you want, as long as she's 5'5", 200lbs and has a gimpy leg.
There was a different right for race and gender back then.
Now it is only gender.
It's not the same thing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is factually different though.There was a different right for race and gender back then.
Now it is only gender.
It's not the same thing.
I did not state that it is the same, I stated that it is logically equivocal. You know the difference between "same" and "equivocal," right?