You have to admit, this group has moxie

#26
#26
volinbham said:
Your are missing the full view of rights here. You can marry anyone you want but what the fundamental idea (at least in the minds of many) of what marriage "means" has been changed.

Marriage is both a legal binding (fits your scenario) and also a symbolic binding. For 100's of years, there was a particular symbolism associated with this event. This is what I really mean by "social institution" and "man-made". It is a collective symbolism, ritual that has been accumulated over time.

If the courts mandate a change in this, they are taking away the rights of people to create, define and practice this particular symbolic institution.

As I've repeatedly stated, the legal aspects and rights are one issue. These can be covered via civil unions. The symbolic aspects are every bit as real but I believe we as individuals should be allowed to define, practice, and defend as we please.

Finally, I recognize that many don't value the symbolism to the same extent that others do. However, that doesn't justify a court solution to mandate change.
Click to expand...
I do understand what you are saying, even if I don't see it the same way. I think what I suggested in an earlier post would resolve both issues. Let the government sanction only civil unions for both homosexual and hetrosexual couples. All couples would have equal rights under the law. Then let the religious institutions decide whether to sanction these unions as a marriage according to their own doctrine. They can issue a certificate which recognizes a couple as "married in the eyes of God" or whatever.
 
#27
#27
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
I do understand what you are saying, even if I don't see it the same way. I think what I suggested in an earlier post would resolve both issues. Let the government sanction only civil unions for both homosexual and hetrosexual couples. All couples would have equal rights under the law. Then let the religious institutions decide whether to sanction these unions as a marriage according to their own doctrine. They can issue a certificate which recognizes a couple as "married in the eyes of God" or whatever.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily have a problem with this if it is voted on by the people.

If such a change were to be court enacted I would have a problem with this.
 
#28
#28
A further comment on your proposal. Government sanctioning of marriage has historically been a result of laws voted on by citizens. These are not Constitutional rights. In other words, we decided to have these laws. If they violate civil rights (possibly in the idea of "family members" in healthcare settings etc.) then those laws can be modified by the courts. Otherwise, changes to these laws == including the government saying what marriage means are perfectly acceptable.

We routinely enact laws that benefit some distinct parties based upon characteristics. What makes this case a bit different is the very concept of the institution has such deep, symbolic meaning to many people.
 
#29
#29
I think it's ironic that a group of philanderers, adulterers, divorcees, and all other assorted titles are the ones trying to define marriage for America.
 
#35
#35
Good to be back....I had to break from boards and especially anything political. Now back to being devil's advocate and all other assorted names you all can assign to me...keep in mind this is a family friendly location. :)
 
#36
#36
there was a movie awhile back on HBO called if these walls could talk. the episode that had vanessa redgrave in it was a prime example of what im talking about concerning civil unions. do you realize that if my partner and i have been together say 40yrs., and one of us got terrminally ill, we are in the hospital and i want my gay partner to be with me at my deathbed. now enters my family who hates my lifestyle and my gay partner. i havent spoken to my family in 40yrs. but according to federal law they are my next of kin. my partner and i have amased a home, a fairly large bank account, and hundreds of nick nacs through the years. my family waltzes in my hospital room, tells the doctor that they dont want my partner in the room with me (im in a coma now), by law my family has all rights to everything i own, and has the right to bar my partner from being at my deathbed. now what is wrong with this picture??? this happens. and has happened to many gay couples through the years. im sorry but this is not right. a hetrosexual couple would never have these problems. i would have to make my partner my power of attorney for her to have any rights whatsoever. im sorry folks but this just aint right.....
 
#37
#37
melissa hyberger said:
there was a movie awhile back on HBO called if these walls could talk. the episode that had vanessa redgrave in it was a prime example of what im talking about concerning civil unions. do you realize that if my partner and i have been together say 40yrs., and one of us got terrminally ill, we are in the hospital and i want my gay partner to be with me at my deathbed. now enters my family who hates my lifestyle and my gay partner. i havent spoken to my family in 40yrs. but according to federal law they are my next of kin. my partner and i have amased a home, a fairly large bank account, and hundreds of nick nacs through the years. my family waltzes in my hospital room, tells the doctor that they dont want my partner in the room with me (im in a coma now), by law my family has all rights to everything i own, and has the right to bar my partner from being at my deathbed. now what is wrong with this picture??? this happens. and has happened to many gay couples through the years. im sorry but this is not right. a hetrosexual couple would never have these problems. i would have to make my partner my power of attorney for her to have any rights whatsoever. im sorry folks but this just aint right.....
Click to expand...

Obviously civil union would be ultimately better, but would a living will not cover most of this (seems like it would at least cover your possessions...and possibly even who can be with you if you were to be in such a situation).
 
#38
#38
you would be shocked at what (next of kin) can do. hey i dont want any special privledges. i served 10yrs. in the military and kept my mouth shut about my sexuality, and this was long before dont ask dont tell. i was willing to die for a country that the majority of people living in it concider me a crime against nature. i have always tried to put the good of my country and family ahead of my own personal intrest. i just want to be able to live my life with dignity.
 
#39
#39
melissa hyberger said:
you would be shocked at what (next of kin) can do. hey i dont want any special privledges. i served 10yrs. in the military and kept my mouth shut about my sexuality, and this was long before dont ask dont tell. i was willing to die for a country that the majority of people living in it concider me a crime against nature. i have always tried to put the good of my country and family ahead of my own personal intrest. i just want to be able to live my life with dignity.
Click to expand...

What would you say is the breakdown among gay couples in terms feeling that government-recognized civil unions would solve these real concerns vs. feeling it should be marriage?
 
#40
#40
i cant talk for all gay couples of course, just for myself. at least with civil unions tou do have some legal rights that cant be overturned in a court of law. i dont believe that any US citizen should ever be denide rights. as long as i pay the same taxes, and obey the same set of laws everyone else does, i feel i should be afforded the same rights. the gay issue is and always will be one of religious perspective. if heterosexual couples were told how many children they can have or not have all hell would break lose. seperation of church and state does not get its power from hurt feelings. this is being abused by many sources such as christmas trees, nativity displays, prayer in schools, etc... there should be no law prohibiting such things because these are all issues of opinion not issues of individual rights. the exclusion of gays in the military, gays being excludes from civial unions, etc.., these are actual rights being taken away from tax paying law abiding citizens of the US.
 
#41
#41
If gay couples were allowed civil unions, who's rights would be trampled? If they were allowed to marry? The defenders of banning gay marriage say it is a matter of the definition of marriage. Actually according to the law it is more a contract than a religious ceremony. There are millions of non-Christian couples out there getting married. If it is the religious definition, then we must apply laws that say only a Christian ordained minister can perform the ceremony and in a church. What then happens?
 
#42
#42
CSpindizzy said:
If gay couples were allowed civil unions, who's rights would be trampled? If they were allowed to marry? The defenders of banning gay marriage say it is a matter of the definition of marriage. Actually according to the law it is more a contract than a religious ceremony. There are millions of non-Christian couples out there getting married. If it is the religious definition, then we must apply laws that say only a Christian ordained minister can perform the ceremony and in a church. What then happens?
Click to expand...

As stated earlier - the "contract" is loaded with ritual and symbolism that goes beyond any particular religion. These have been created through time by society. For a court to change the meaning impacts the rights of society to create these rituals and symbolism.

Society has not defined marriage as a Christian event only so that argument doesn't apply.

Finally, society may change and gay marriage may become part of the definition of marriage. If it does, so be it. However, this decision should not be forced upon society via court decisions.
 
#43
#43
melissa hyberger said:
the exclusion of gays in the military, gays being excludes from civial unions, etc.., these are actual rights being taken away from tax paying law abiding citizens of the US.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. As I've tried to make clear throughout this thread - I see a distinction between "marriage" and the specific rights that are associated with being married. I see no reason not to extend the same rights to gay couples.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top