|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 1:33 PM
Post #1 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Having read the news on this decision, I'm not clear how giving gay couples all the legal rights of marriage but only calling it civil union is unjust.
Can someone explain to this me how a civil union is insufficient (legally) compared to marriage?
I doubt it.
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
climbinganne
Feb 5, 2004, 1:39 PM
Post #2 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2002
Posts: 11679
|
i don't know bumblie...
i just know if two ppl love each other and make a valid commitment to themselves/each other...the government shouldn't put restrictions on that
whether they are gay or a brother and sister from charlotte, NC
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 1:44 PM
Post #3 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Are you saying siblings should have all the legal rights of a married couple? And be able to wed one another?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 2:00 PM
Post #5 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: In reply to: Are you saying siblings should have all the legal rights of a married couple? And be able to wed one another? Only if they're gay siblings from NC! :lol:
So, what your saying is that a brother and sister (both gay) should be able to wed.... if they live in NC. This is getting confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Feb 5, 2004, 2:15 PM
Post #6 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
My biggest problem with it is that it is another case of an Ultra Liberal judge making a decision that should rightly have beeen left in the hands of the voters.
Personally, I agree with John Kerry. I favor full rights of civil unions but I respect the various religions' desire to preserve what they view as the sanctity of the word marriage. Unfortunately for everyone, Dubya is sitting in the White house chuckling saying "Thank You Massachusetts" because now Kerry's team will have to expend extra effort to convince people that he isn't a typicaly Massachusetts Liberal, a la Dukakis and it only makes Jr's re-election more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Feb 5, 2004, 4:18 PM
Post #7 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Can someone explain to this me how a civil union is insufficient (legally) compared to marriage?
Simple.
Seperate but equal isn't. Remember brown vs. the board of education?
And we have this little thing called the equal protection clause in the 14th ammendment. Guess what---it says that the government can't descriminate when it comes to race or gender.
So. If the government is involved in marriage (which they definitely should not be), they have to do so under the restrictions of the 14th ammendment. Which means equal protection, which means no gender-based discrimination. Which means you can't say a woman can't marry a woman, unless you ammend the constitution (which you fascists seem to want to do).
It's only a matter of time before SCOTUS gets to hear this argument. A couple is going to get married in Mass., move to somewhere else, and sue the state. The feds'll get to be involved because it affects interstate commerce.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 5, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #8 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: Can someone explain to this me how a civil union is insufficient (legally) compared to marriage? I doubt it. (3)
Here's the decision itself, which provides the legal argument:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/st02200.htm
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 4:39 PM
Post #9 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Nice reply fracture. I disagree with much of your argument, but I appreciate you putting it in a well thought out, cohesive manner.
What I'm trying to figure out is how does allowing civil unions (but not calling it marriage) negatively effect gay couples. "Separate but equal" has a nice ring to it. It's factors regarding segregated schools were self-evident. Here, they're not so apparent.
Someone, please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
pornstarr
Feb 5, 2004, 4:44 PM
Post #10 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 824
|
because those that it affects are unhappy with it and feel it is unjust.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 5, 2004, 4:47 PM
Post #11 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: Nice reply fracture. I disagree with much of your argument, but I appreciate you putting it in a well thought out, cohesive manner. What I'm trying to figure out is how does allowing civil unions (but not calling it marriage) negatively effect gay couples. "Separate but equal" has a nice ring to it. It's factors regarding segregated schools were self-evident. Here, they're not so apparent. Someone, please enlighten me.
It's hard to do a better job of stating the legal argument than the justices themselves do in the decision itself:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/st02200.htm
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 4:50 PM
Post #12 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
I check out the site. Way too many words. It made my head hurt. :cry:
Sounds like pornstar nailed it, though.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 5, 2004, 4:57 PM
Post #13 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I also think pornstarr is right. There don't seem to be any direct practical implications, but calling it a civil union, when it is in fact a marriage, certainly has a "second-class citizen" ring to it.
|
|
|
|
|
cerikpete
Feb 5, 2004, 4:59 PM
Post #14 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 4043
|
Yeah I agree with Troy.
The question then becomes, what do you (people against gay marriage) lose by allowing this to happen?
You say it ruins the sanctity of marriage, but I'm not sure how this affects you personally. So, please respond.
|
|
|
|
|
pornstarr
Feb 5, 2004, 5:00 PM
Post #15 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 824
|
In reply to: Sounds like pornstar nailed it, though.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 5, 2004, 5:08 PM
Post #16 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: Yeah I agree with Troy. The question then becomes, what do you (people against gay marriage) lose by allowing this to happen? You say it ruins the sanctity of marriage, but I'm not sure how this affects you personally. So, please respond.
I've been wondering the same thing. WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Feb 5, 2004, 5:28 PM
Post #17 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yeah I agree with Troy. The question then becomes, what do you (people against gay marriage) lose by allowing this to happen? You say it ruins the sanctity of marriage, but I'm not sure how this affects you personally. So, please respond. I've been wondering the same thing. WTF?
Wouldn't it be unraveling an already beleaguered basic unit of society, the traditional family unit?
I'm speaking of the "ideal" tradition family unit, with both parents as husband and wife rearing the children.
As I see it, as the family unravels, so follows society. I mean, who can deny that we are seeing more and more children every year committing crimes that were once the sole domain of sick adults? Doesn't anybody see the correlation?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 5:31 PM
Post #18 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cerikpete
Feb 5, 2004, 5:59 PM
Post #20 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 4043
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yeah I agree with Troy. The question then becomes, what do you (people against gay marriage) lose by allowing this to happen? You say it ruins the sanctity of marriage, but I'm not sure how this affects you personally. So, please respond. I've been wondering the same thing. WTF? Wouldn't it be unraveling an already beleaguered basic unit of society, the traditional family unit? I'm speaking of the "ideal" tradition family unit, with both parents as husband and wife rearing the children. As I see it, as the family unravels, so follows society. I mean, who can deny that we are seeing more and more children every year committing crimes that were once the sole domain of sick adults? Doesn't anybody see the correlation?
Ok, I guess I don't see how this is the case. I am straight and will get married and have a family. All of my friends who want a family will raise one. I don't see how making gay marriages legal changes any of this. It's not going to change the way I raise my family, and I don't see how it'll affect anyone else's, either now or in the future.
The only possible difference I can see is that some (surely rare, but some) people who would get married unhappily because of society's disdain for the gay lifestyle will now not feel obligated to enter those unhappy unions.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Feb 5, 2004, 6:16 PM
Post #21 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
Erik, in all fairness, you should add the final part of my post....makes more sense that way.
|
|
|
|
|
cerikpete
Feb 5, 2004, 6:19 PM
Post #22 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 4043
|
In reply to: Erik, in all fairness, you should add the final part of my post....makes more sense that way.
Done
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Feb 5, 2004, 7:02 PM
Post #23 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
Good civil discussion :)
Some thoughts I have...
then, ptc, does that mean that families that are not following the 'tradition' or 'ideal' that you speak of also have something to do with the problem? (I'm thinking couples that marry but choose careers or other things over having children and raising families). If by definition, marriage's purpose is to raise children, then many married couples aren't meeting this ideal as it is. If they aren't, does it make a difference that two women or two men do the same?
I do understand your correlation of the family unraveling and thus society -and I agree that the foundation of a family has much to do with how children will turn out as young adults and adults. However, I think that you will find much more correlation between children/young adults who commit crime who come from broken homes, bad foster situations, abuse, parents who have substance abuse problems, sub-par living conditions, living in bad areas (I'm thinking lots of violence and gangs) and so on - rather than it having to do with whether or not that have a mom and a dad or two dads. Two people who love eachother very much can raise 'good' kids regardless of if it's a man and a woman or two of the same sex (in my opinion).
I think that 'family' as we know it has already started to unravel. As a teacher, I see abused children, messy divorces (including my own parents), and a miriad of what I would call unraveled families. So then are todays heterosexual families not more to blame for the fate of todays misguided children than homosexual unions? Those are just some questions I have about what you're saying.
I don't find anything wrong with it being called a civil union rather than a marriage. But for some reason, some gay folks do, and that's their fight to fight I guess. Just my .02 cents.... or maybe it's more like .50.... :) ;)
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 7:37 PM
Post #24 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Would it be "gender discrimination" to define marriage and stick to the definition? The law defines many things. Actions outside the given defintion are disallowed, as I understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 5, 2004, 8:05 PM
Post #25 of 87
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Therein lies the rub. Does it actually harm the institution of marriage to allow gays the same ritual and rights? Or does it only harm some people's worldview of what marriage should be, to them?
I don't think we can truthfully say that gay marriage will cause the institution itself - and hence the family - to unravel. Consider that to date zero American gays have "married," and the American family seems to be declining just fine on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
