RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue

RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 9:15:40 AM)
I suggest you re-read what I wrote if that response was to me. We agree. Peace and comfort, Michael

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 10:07:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: What "rights" are being infringed? The right to sign a contract. Recently, New York cleared up just such an ambiguity in the Domestic Relations Law which EXPLICITLY states that marriage is, and always has been a civil contract. The UCC states that contracts are to be constructed without regard to gender. Us Jews call the marriage contract a "Ketubah". So, tell me how telling two people, who wish to enter into a contract, that they cannot enter into that contract isn't denying them the right to enter into contracts... Who says they can't sign a contract? What contract can't they sign?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 10:12:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Marriage (as provided for in the bible) was show yourselves before god and the community. The idea of anything after that was so the church could skin a buck off you. Hardly a religious issue, the granting of a civil license. Aha, the "granting of a civil license." So, what you are saying, then, is that homosexuals don't actually want to be married, but to have a civil license. A civil license for what? What would this license grant?

mnottertail -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 10:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Marriage (as provided for in the bible) was show yourselves before god and the community. The idea of anything after that was so the church could skin a buck off you. Hardly a religious issue, the granting of a civil license. Aha, the "granting of a civil license." So, what you are saying, then, is that homosexuals don't actually want to be married, but to have a civil license. A civil license for what? What would this license grant? The same as is granted now for any other marriage. You know.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 11:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The same as is granted now for any other marriage. You know. Aha, so they don't really want to sign a contract. They just want the bennies. Why not protest for civil unions to get the same civil benefits as a marriage? Civil unions, then, could be legalized and everything is candy canes and cotton candy, right? Why is it that many of the proponents of same sex marriage require it to be called "marriage," when all they are really after is the benefits? Thanks for being honest.

mnottertail -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 11:45:32 AM)
You should probably read Obamas statement again. I am for civil unions because I believe it is within federal purview under equal protection, don't care one way or another personally whether you call it a marriage or not. I think the 'marriage' part is a states rights issue, although a distinction without a difference. And your aha crap is an animadversion I will not partake of, I ain't gay insofar as I know, have no interest in a same sex partner, far as I know, and am still being honest insofar as I know that they want what 'married' people want. And that is as far as I will involve myself in it. My whole thought on the thing is that I dont think its anyones business what sort of tools you look to be wrenched on or wrenched with when you go to the workbench. Let them eat cake. However, there aint no gay or lesbian (see; that double purpose gay thing needs work) faction that is out there fighting for my right to enslave women for blowjobs and pleasureslaving and whatnot, so just like I didn't go to Dick Clark's funeral cuz its a damn sure thing he aint comin to mine, that part of it I am gonna sit out.

farglebargle -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 12:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: What "rights" are being infringed? The right to sign a contract. Recently, New York cleared up just such an ambiguity in the Domestic Relations Law which EXPLICITLY states that marriage is, and always has been a civil contract. The UCC states that contracts are to be constructed without regard to gender. Us Jews call the marriage contract a "Ketubah". So, tell me how telling two people, who wish to enter into a contract, that they cannot enter into that contract isn't denying them the right to enter into contracts... Who says they can't sign a contract? What contract can't they sign? I don't know about whatever State you live in, but in MY STATE, "Marriage" is, and always has been defined as a CIVIL CONTRACT. Which, historically if you consider women have been chattel property, would be the only way to transfer ownership of that property.

SternSkipper -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 12:59:11 PM)
quote: So, tell me how telling two people, who wish to enter into a contract, that they cannot enter into that contract isn't denying them the right to enter into contracts... Gays in the remaining states should start suing the states themselves for restraint of trade. It would be TOTALLY EASY to demonstrate how the intent to buy a home together and other large purchases, along with all the businesses in the community that benefit from the contract of marriage that a revenue stream is being generated that rivals some businesses.

SternSkipper -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 1:41:58 PM)
quote: Who says they can't sign a contract? What contract can't they sign? THE STATE... And it's either called a "mariage licence" or a "certificate of civil union"... just playing make-believe with the legal precepts makes for a squishy platform for debate. It's like arguing crystal meth is an anti-oxidant.

farglebargle -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 2:00:41 PM)
Actually, the marriage LICENSE is separate and distinct from the marriage contract itself. We have our marriage contract, signed by the Judge and our witnesses framed and on the wall of our house. I expect our license application is microfiched somewhere down in city hall's basement.

DomKen -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 2:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: "I don't think it's a matter of civil rights. I think it's just a matter of whether or not we're going to adhere to something that's been historical and religious and legal in this country for many, many years," Priebus said. "I mean, marriage has to have a definition, and we just happen to believe it's between a man and woman." Race slavery was "historical, and religious and legal in this country for many, many years." [8\|] ~FR~ Are you seriously equating slavery to not allowing same sex marriage?!? Ripped from a 'nilla site: Did anyone ever "come out" as being Black, to the surprise of their friends? Did anyone ever spend years as a white man, only to discover later that he had an "inner Latino?" Did anyone ever leave being Italian, and decide to be Asian instead? ---I have nothing against gay people. I have gay friends. But the modern insistence that they are an ethnicity, and that their issues are "civil rights" issues is absurd. Whatever these issues are or are not, they are NOT civil rights issues. What "rights" are being infringed? If you want to state that it's a civil benefits issue, we'd agree. What is marriage, if not a religious thing? Guys aren't asked if they are going to marry their gal to make an honest woman out of them because of some civil thing. It's all about some religious thinking. Fornication isn't against secular law. Imagine the uproar on college campuses everywhere if it was. It's a sin in the Bible, though. What is to be gained by allowing homosexual marriage? Yes people have come out as black and latino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity) Marriage is a social contract giving each spouse certain privileges and responsibilities. What is to be gained by allowing anyone to marry? Entry into that social compact gives a certain status to the relationship and cnveys those rights and responsibilities. The exactly analagous situation was miscegenation laws of the USA that were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. Would anyone today argue the state has some vested interest in denying couples the right to marry based on the racial identity of the couple? So then what is the vested state interest in denying the right to marry to couples based on their sexual orientation.

dcnovice -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 4:39:11 PM)
FR It's been a long day (dealing with the relationship woes of a friend who seems determined to make me grateful for being single), so I don't have the energy for a lot of research tonight. But I did come across two things I wanted to share: (a) Dear old Wikipedia (I know: not the most authoritative source) has an interesting entry on Marriage in Ancient Rome. It says, "In order for the union of a man and woman to be legitimate, there needed to be consent legally and morally." The entry also talks about marriage laws decreed by the emperor Augustus, who was concerned about boosting the population. Among other details, "Heavier taxes were assessed on unmarried men and women without husbands, but privileges and recognition were granted for marriage and childbearing." All this to suggest that government has been involved with marriage for some time now. I don't mean to besmirch the sincerity of those arguing that the government should exit the marriage business, but I can't help noticing that I never heard that clarion call before gay marriage came along. (b) In a 2004 letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that their research had identified "a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges." That's not, of course, including any benefits conferred at the state level.

dcnovice -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 4:57:01 PM)
quote: What is to be gained by allowing homosexual marriage? In a word, dignity.* Some of you have heard this story before, and I apologize for repeating myself. But it's the best answer I know to this question. In 2006, my Aunt Brenda--witty, wise, wonderful, and amazingly kind to yours truly during some rough patches--died in upstate New York (which had not yet achieved marriage equality). Seconds after she flatlined, a doctor burst into the room, demanding to speak to the next of kin. Brenda's beloved partner, Melanie, who had seen Brenda through an agonizing decline at the hands of a brutal affliction called multiple system atrophy, introduced herself and explained that she held Brenda's power of attorney. "That expired when she did," the doctor replied. "I need to talk to a member of the family." I invite any of our eloquent posters on this issue to argue that that would have happened to a legal spouse. And that's what "homosexual marriage" is all about, Charlie Brown. Being recognized, after years of loving and faithful union and in the most heartbreaking moment of one's life, as "a member of the family." Edited for typo, alas. * This one-word answer does not, of course, include the more than a thousand marriage-related rights and privileges conferred by U.S. law.

TrekkieLP -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 4:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The same as is granted now for any other marriage. You know. Aha, so they don't really want to sign a contract. They just want the bennies. Ah, so you don't want to discuss what he said, you'd rather go invent a straw man. quote: Why not protest for civil unions to get the same civil benefits as a marriage? Civil unions, then, could be legalized and everything is candy canes and cotton candy, right? Why is it that many of the proponents of same sex marriage require it to be called "marriage," when all they are really after is the benefits? Thanks for being honest. Because "separate but equal" isn't equal, never has been equal, and isn't constitutional?

TrekkieLP -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 5:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Gays in the remaining states should start suing the states themselves for restraint of trade. It would be TOTALLY EASY to demonstrate how the intent to buy a home together and other large purchases, along with all the businesses in the community that benefit from the contract of marriage that a revenue stream is being generated that rivals some businesses. Actually, back when this whole fight started, I found myself wondering why some state (I was thinking of Las Vegas) didn't legalize gay marriage, just so they could cash in on being the only place in the whole country where gays could get married. Y'know, you could bring a lot of money into your state, from people who come into the state, spend a week and thousands of dollars, then go home. Seemed like a way to make serious money for the local economy, to me.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 6:03:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TrekkieLP quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The same as is granted now for any other marriage. You know. Aha, so they don't really want to sign a contract. They just want the bennies. Ah, so you don't want to discuss what he said, you'd rather go invent a straw man. And what would that straw man be? "The same as granted now for any other marriage." That was the response. What else does being married grant anyone other than civil benefits? What? Tell me. That's why I ask questions. To get answers. It's not my fault that the responses I get are vague. You had the opportunity to answer the question, too. Why didn't you? How about doing so now, rather than riding on other's answers? quote: quote: Why not protest for civil unions to get the same civil benefits as a marriage? Civil unions, then, could be legalized and everything is candy canes and cotton candy, right? Why is it that many of the proponents of same sex marriage require it to be called "marriage," when all they are really after is the benefits? Thanks for being honest. Because "separate but equal" isn't equal, never has been equal, and isn't constitutional? Really? Since you have absolutely no fucking clue what my actual opinion is on this matter, lemme spell it out for you. 1. Anything that is currently called a "marriage" should be a civil union. 2. Civil Unions performed in a church as a religious function would be the only civil unions allowed to be called marriages. 3. A marriage would be a subset of civil unions. 4. All civil benefits, rights, responsibilities, etc. are tied to civil unions. 5. As long as the civil union is consensual between the two adults, no other limitations may be imposed. So, you see, what I'm actually proposing is that civil unions become completely legal and that all benefits, rights, responsibilities, etc. are carried by the civil union. Since I fully believe that marriage is a religious sacrament, only those civil unions performed as a religious function would qualify to be called a marriage. In the eyes of the law, they are simply civil unions. In the eyes of the church, it's a marriage. That also means that heterosexuals getting married outside of a religious setting (ie. Justice of the Peace) would not be able to call their civil unions marriages. I am for two consenting adults being allowed to enter into a contract that carries all the benefits, rights, etc. that are carried by what we call marriages today. But, do go on.

dcnovice -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 7:00:35 PM)
quote: Since I fully believe that marriage is a religious sacrament, only those civil unions performed as a religious function would qualify to be called a marriage. In the eyes of the law, they are simply civil unions. In the eyes of the church, it's a marriage. That also means that heterosexuals getting married outside of a religious setting (ie. Justice of the Peace) would not be able to call their civil unions marriages. Forgive me, but I can't resist asking: Isn't that, well, redefining marriage? [:)]

thishereboi -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 7:09:43 PM)
quote: So, you see, what I'm actually proposing is that civil unions become completely legal and that all benefits, rights, responsibilities, etc. are carried by the civil union. Since I fully believe that marriage is a religious sacrament, only those civil unions performed as a religious function would qualify to be called a marriage. In the eyes of the law, they are simply civil unions. In the eyes of the church, it's a marriage. That also means that heterosexuals getting married outside of a religious setting (ie. Justice of the Peace) would not be able to call their civil unions marriages. You do realize that gays can go to a church and get married now. It just isn't recognized by the state.

dcnovice -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 7:12:36 PM)
quote: You do realize that gays can go to a church and get married now. It just isn't recognized by the state. I went to what I think was the first gay marriage (as opposed to "blessing") at my Episcopal parish, and it was incredibly moving. And DC's marriage equality law was actually signed in a (Unitarian) church! [:)]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Republican says Same Sex Marriage Isnt Civil Rights Issue (5/14/2012 7:13:30 PM)
"Marriage" as a word is not restricted to a religious ceremony (and never has been). Marriage is the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. In other words, "marriage" as a legal term, has nothing to do with what any given religion recognizes or does not recognize. It is a legal relationship defined by the laws of a particular jurisdiction. It is NOT a religious matter, it is a legal matter. So the term "gay marriage" is the correct term for what the gay community seeks. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. The definition of a civil right has nothing to do with whether someone is part of a group, whether that group has mutable or immutable characteristics, or any such thing. A civil right is an individual's right. So the civil right in question is an individual's right to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Honestly, I don't understand why this is so complicated for people to understand. [&:]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625