Real Discussion...?

#51
#51
turambar85 said:
I appreciate the second view: there are too many people that I know who place politics over the safety and health of children. I still am curious, though, about the first. Why doesn't it matter? If there was a national referendum on gay marriage would you vote? If so, how?
Click to expand...

I believe what he means is personal views are just personal views, we all have them. It should make no more difference to anyone else than if he liked mustard on his biscuits in place of butter.
 
#52
#52
KB5252 said:
Why should that matter? Different states have different statutes, the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses, the state does.
Click to expand...

Because I believe that gay marriage bans are unjust, and forcing somebody to move to another state in order to live their lives because their home state refuses to acknowledge their marriage is a bit much for me to turn my head.
 
#53
#53
I suppose it is possible that one could argue a 14th amendment extension of the 1st amendment to the state level, making it more than just an issue for state's to resolve.

I would vote for my state to completely get out of the marriage business. I understand the need for state-recognized unions for the purposes of tax, right to property, etc. I would be fine with my state issuing union licenses to those who have been married by a state-recognized church or to those who come to the state/city for a union. To me, marriage is rooted in religious foundations - so I don't think that state should have the right to issue a marriage license. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want to be recognized by the state/federal government as being in a union, take that marriage certificate to the state/local authorities and have it recognized.

States could still vote, I suppose, to not allow gay union (or any other kind of union, I guess), but I just think it is a business the states shouldn't be in as long as we define marriage as a sacrament (which I think most of America does, though perhaps that's another vote). Though even as I say that I worry about saying "that's another vote"....everything can't be put to a vote...we've already been down that road with regard to evolution, IIRC.
 
#54
#54
turambar85 said:
Because I believe that gay marriage bans are unjust, and forcing somebody to move to another state in order to live their lives because their home state refuses to acknowledge their marriage is a bit much for me to turn my head.
Click to expand...

So "living their lives" is prevented if they can't have a state sanctioned marriage license? What if civil union laws provide all the "spousal rights"?
 
#55
#55
KB5252 said:
I believe what he means is personal views are just personal views, we all have them. It should make no more difference to anyone else than if he liked mustard on his biscuits in place of butter.
Click to expand...

But if gay marriage is illegal, thus preventing millions of Americans from participating in a secular union, then the importance it has for those people should compel those who aren't that involved and don't have strong feelings on the subject to vote for it legality. So, it may not matter to him, but then it's importance for other people as a basic right should be enough to spark some action.
 
#56
#56
I live in Massachusetts (well, not right now, I'm in Norway, but outside of this summer I live there), so I should know this, but is it true that you can get a Gay Marriage in Mass. but not a Gay Divorce? If so, that just sucks.
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
So "living their lives" is prevented if they can't have a state sanctioned marriage license? What if civil union laws provide all the "spousal rights"?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already ruled that separate but equal is not equal and is not just. One reason for that is that marriage would, in this instance, serve as a guaranteer or the rights alleged to be found in civil unions. It also validates their relationship instead of forcing them to the legal fringe.
 
#58
#58
turambar85 said:
Because I believe that gay marriage bans are unjust, and forcing somebody to move to another state in order to live their lives because their home state refuses to acknowledge their marriage is a bit much for me to turn my head.
Click to expand...

Isn't the argument really about the meaning of the word marriage? For instance what if states that did not want gay marriage, allowed for civil unions with equal benefits?
 
#59
#59
KB5252 said:
Isn't the argument really about the meaning of the word marriage? For instance what if states that did not want gay marriage, allowed for civil unions with equal benefits?
Click to expand...

Well, the supreme court case mentioned above deals a little with civil unions.
 
#60
#60
turambar85 said:
I appreciate the second view: there are too many people that I know who place politics over the safety and health of children. I still am curious, though, about the first. Why doesn't it matter? If there was a national referendum on gay marriage would you vote? If so, how?
Click to expand...

If two dudes, or two women want to engage in sexual activity and get married, I could care less.

I am all about freedom baby!
 
#61
#61
TennTradition said:
I suppose it is possible that one could argue a 14th amendment extension of the 1st amendment to the state level, making it more than just an issue for state's to resolve.

I would vote for my state to completely get out of the marriage business. I understand the need for state-recognized unions for the purposes of tax, right to property, etc. I would be fine with my state issuing union licenses to those who have been married by a state-recognized church or to those who come to the state/city for a union. To me, marriage is rooted in religious foundations - so I don't think that state should have the right to issue a marriage license. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want to be recognized by the state/federal government as being in a union, take that marriage certificate to the state/local authorities and have it recognized.

States could still vote, I suppose, to not allow gay union (or any other kind of union, I guess), but I just think it is a business the states shouldn't be in as long as we define marriage as a sacrament (which I think most of America does, though perhaps that's another vote). Though even as I say that I worry about saying "that's another vote"....everything can't be put to a vote...we've already been down that road with regard to evolution, IIRC.
Click to expand...

God bless you!
 
#63
#63
KB5252 said:
Isn't the argument really about the meaning of the word marriage? For instance what if states that did not want gay marriage, allowed for civil unions with equal benefits?
Click to expand...

Exactly, why let the government define who you are!
 
#64
#64
turambar85 said:
The Supreme Court has already ruled that separate but equal is not equal and is not just. One reason for that is that marriage would, in this instance, serve as a guaranteer or the rights alleged to be found in civil unions. It also validates their relationship instead of forcing them to the legal fringe.
Click to expand...

Civil unions could certainly provide the same guarantees legally as marriage could.

Has the Supreme Court ruled separate but equal in the case of gay marriage or are you just using that argument in general?
 
#65
#65
TennTradition said:
I suppose it is possible that one could argue a 14th amendment extension of the 1st amendment to the state level, making it more than just an issue for state's to resolve.

I would vote for my state to completely get out of the marriage business. I understand the need for state-recognized unions for the purposes of tax, right to property, etc. I would be fine with my state issuing union licenses to those who have been married by a state-recognized church or to those who come to the state/city for a union. To me, marriage is rooted in religious foundations - so I don't think that state should have the right to issue a marriage license. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want to be recognized by the state/federal government as being in a union, take that marriage certificate to the state/local authorities and have it recognized.

States could still vote, I suppose, to not allow gay union (or any other kind of union, I guess), but I just think it is a business the states shouldn't be in as long as we define marriage as a sacrament (which I think most of America does, though perhaps that's another vote). Though even as I say that I worry about saying "that's another vote"....everything can't be put to a vote...we've already been down that road with regard to evolution, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
#67
#67
volinbham said:
Civil unions could certainly provide the same guarantees legally as marriage could.

Has the Supreme Court ruled separate but equal in the case of gay marriage or are you just using that argument in general?
Click to expand...

The argument in general, as their claim was a general one in Plessy V. Ferguson.

If separate but equal doesn't work because it is unjust in one instance, it should transfer across similar lines.

And civil unions do not guarantee them because our laws are still in large measure in the hands of the citizenry and their interests, and as long as there is a clear demarcation between us (straight people) and them (gay people) in our marriage it helps cement this us/them standing in the eyes of voters. A name does a lot as regards a persons perception.
 
#68
#68
turambar85 said:
The argument in general, as their claim was a general one in Plessy V. Ferguson.

If separate but equal doesn't work because it is unjust in one instance, it should transfer across similar lines.

And civil unions do not guarantee them because our laws are still in large measure in the hands of the citizenry and their interests, and as long as there is a clear demarcation between us (straight people) and them (gay people) in our marriage it helps cement this us/them standing in the eyes of voters. A name does a lot as regards a persons perception.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be a concern.

You have to live your own life how you want and not let other effect or control you in any way due to some emotional value.
 
#69
#69
turambar85 said:
The argument in general, as their claim was a general one in Plessy V. Ferguson.

If separate but equal doesn't work because it is unjust in one instance, it should transfer across similar lines.

Clearly there are limits to the lines it can transfer across. Until the SCOTUS rules it applies here it is simply opinion with no legal standing.

And civil unions do not guarantee them because our laws are still in large measure in the hands of the citizenry and their interests, and as long as there is a clear demarcation between us (straight people) and them (gay people) in our marriage it helps cement this us/them standing in the eyes of voters. A name does a lot as regards a persons perception.
Click to expand...

Marriage laws are in the hands of the citizens as well and that is precisely the point. Unless you can find a fundamental "right" in the Constitution, then people are free to create laws surrounding marriage in anyway they see fit. Why is polygamy illegal? Clearly polygamists are even more of a demarcated group. Why don't they have a fundamental right to marriage?
 
#70
#70
OrangeEmpire said:
This shouldn't be a concern.

You have to live your own life how you want and not let other effect or control you in any way due to some emotional value.
Click to expand...

Well, it matters because perception affects understanding, and understanding affects voting, and voting affects laws. LAws should be a concern!
 
#71
#71
volinbham said:
Marriage laws are in the hands of the citizens as well and that is precisely the point. Unless you can find a fundamental "right" in the Constitution, then people are free to create laws surrounding marriage in anyway they see fit. Why is polygamy illegal? Clearly polygamists are even more of a demarcated group. Why don't they have a fundamental right to marriage?
Click to expand...

Well, even though there are arguments to be made for marriage as between two loving individuals, I don't really care for them. I too wonder about polygamists, and don't see a problem with lumping them in this category as well.
 
#72
#72
volinbham said:
Marriage laws are in the hands of the citizens as well and that is precisely the point. Unless you can find a fundamental "right" in the Constitution, then people are free to create laws surrounding marriage in anyway they see fit. Why is polygamy illegal? Clearly polygamists are even more of a demarcated group. Why don't they have a fundamental right to marriage?
Click to expand...

+1 :hi:
 
#73
#73
turambar85 said:
Well, it matters because perception affects understanding, and understanding affects voting, and voting affects laws. LAws should be a concern!
Click to expand...

So, if civil unions were identical to marriage in everyway (from a rights granted by the state perspective) you would still argue that gays have the "right" to use the word "marriage" because the word contains some meaning?

If this is true, why don't straights have a "right" to use a word that defines their relationship? Why to they have to sacrifice the meaning that they've attached to the word?
 
#75
#75
I am much more concerned that VA does not recognize TN's speed limits than I am gay marriage. 70mph is the way to go
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top