BetterMost Community Blogs > The Twist Family Bible Study
My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights
letxa2000:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 22, 2008, 10:26:24 pm ---No, that won't do the job, because it has been decided in this country, in another context and at the national level, that separate is inherently unequal.
--- End quote ---
No, this is a different issue.
--- Quote ---If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage. It's quoted somewhere here on Bettermost, but unfortunately I'm not skillful at searching and creating links. A "civil union" is most definitely a second class institution.
--- End quote ---
The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California. The issue still has to be settled at a national evel. But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "second class institution."
--- Quote ---I don't wish to offend people either, but those who have "a more traditional view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with it...
--- End quote ---
Or perhaps those that have "a more progressive view of marriage" need to get over it or deal with the fact that society doesn't agree with them.
--- Quote ---I've gone on at some length elsewhere here on Bettermost that what I believe is that government needs to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and clergy or religious authorities of any faith need to be deprived of the power of concluding legal "marriages." "Marriage" should be left up to religious belief. Only the government should have the power to conclude the civil contract of legally binding two people together.
--- End quote ---
So now not only are you expecting those with traditional views of marriage to recognize marriages of gay couples, you want to tell them that their church will no longer have the legal ability to perform marriages? You seem to expect society to just drop centuries of tradition because you want it to. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
--- Quote ---So if you hold "a more traditional view" of marriage, that it can exist only between a man and a woman, fine, go ahead and believe it, and let it be your religious authority figure who conducts your "marriage." That ceremony should just have no standing in law.
--- End quote ---
Or perhaps the "marriage" of a gay couple should have no standing in law instead?
letxa2000:
--- Quote from: CellarDweller on September 22, 2008, 10:32:18 pm ---"Our handbook and bylaws state that we offer benefits to a spouse, which is someone you are legally married to. Since you have a "civil union" and not a marriage, we will not allow you to list your partner as a beneficary on your health coverage."
--- End quote ---
Then the law of the state was inadequately clear about civil unions being entirely legally equal to a marriage or that company needs to be sued. Changes this big aren't going to happen overnight and I don't doubt there will be some lawsuits involved. But this isn't proof that you need "marriage." It just means that the law about civil unions must be absolutely clear that they are legally identical to marriage and that must be afforded the exact same legitimacy.
letxa2000:
--- Quote from: atz75 on September 22, 2008, 10:36:54 pm ---Jeff, it's interesting that you brought up the issue of women's suffrage and the state-by-state issue has become part of this overall discussion. For the majority of the suffrage movement, it was a state-by-state campaign with some states granting women the right to vote well earlier than others. Wyoming being the first! Yeehaw! (As with many western states). But, it wasn't until the early years of the 20th century when the emphasis and pressure within the suffrage movement were focused on the federal amendment that the women's suffrage struggle came to a successful conclusion for all women in the country, regardless of race, etc. (even though Susan B. Anthony had written the wording of the amendment in the late 19th century).
--- End quote ---
Not the same, though, because it doesn't matter to Vermont if Wyoming lets women vote. Voting is an entirely local issue and what happens in Wyoming stays in Wyoming. However, marriage licenses from one state are supposed to be honored by all states, hence the inherent problem of anything like civil unions being implemented on a state by state basis.
Brown Eyes:
Letxa, I'm still trying to understand why you think a heterosexual union should be called something different from a gay union. Truly, I want to understand why you think there should be a difference. Tradition for tradition's sake doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me.
Clyde-B:
--- Quote from: letxa2000 on September 22, 2008, 10:41:56 pm ---
The California Supreme Court is not the law of the land, it's the law of California. The issue still has to be settled at a national evel. But if there are two names for the exact same rights I fail to see how that will be held to be "second class institution."
--- End quote ---
The question would be: "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?" What is the point - other than discrimination?
It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version