BetterMost Community Blogs > The Twist Family Bible Study
My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights
letxa2000:
--- Quote from: Clyde-B on September 22, 2008, 10:54:12 pm ---The question would be: "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?" What is the point - other than discrimination?
--- End quote ---
Tradition, and respect for tradition, and a little but of "give" on the part of the gay community when the conservative community is "giving" quite a lot by accepting the option of civil unions.
--- Quote ---It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.
--- End quote ---
It would be a case of equal but equal.
Having said that, if you think that by calling yourselves "married" that you will be free of discrimination, that's obviously silly. If anything I think that it would simply heighten discrimination and negative attitudes against gays.
letxa2000:
--- Quote from: southendmd on September 22, 2008, 11:05:55 pm ---Tradition changes, and for good reason.
--- End quote ---
On the other hand, tradition doesn't always change. And when it changes it's not always for good reason.
brokeplex:
gay man, strongly in favor of same sex marriage which I believe will be a reality in most of the 50 states and DC in the near future. civil unions are a stop gap measure in the right direction, but when I marry Dusty, I am going to MARRY DUSTY. which is going to happen right after this election is over. he finally said, "looks like a plan". :)
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: letxa2000 on September 22, 2008, 06:29:27 pm ---My positions are:
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.
Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.
--- End quote ---
I think that you have it reversed from what is politically doable. the states will take the lead in both civil unions and marriage. there is no federal consensus to accept a constitutional amendment in this matter, and remember TX, there are extraordinary constitutional hurdles to go thru in order to a constitutional amendment to pass and become a part of the working constitution.
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: letxa2000 on September 22, 2008, 09:19:23 pm ---I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage. If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it. If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either.
The reason I don't support these efforts at the state level is because if you get into a situation where different states have different rules regarding the matter than you have a headache such as one I read about somewhere where some state (RI? VT? Don't remember) couldn't grant a divorce to a gay couple because the state where they wanted the divorce didn't recognize the marriage in the first place. To avoid that kind of incompatibility, any legal changes should be at the federal level.
--- End quote ---
I disagree with you here, the "full faith and credit" clause takes care of recognizing interstate contracts, and marriage is just such a contract. no difficulties will be found in some states having same sex marriage or civil unions, and others not having them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version