George Bush Comes Out

[Enemy Ace]

I have three statements that I feel are important, here.

1. I am not concerned and feel my life is in no way affected by the marriage/civil union of homosexuals.

2. I will not dissent provided that everyone is allowed to marry or form a civil union, such as non-homosexual friends. Citizens are entitled to fair and equal treatment under the law.

3. I would also not dissent if judges refrained from making laws. Their job is to interpret the law and strike down, if neccessary. The legislature is charged with making law.

Judges are now making laws. I must dissent, here. I, also, must say that it is not the substance of the matter, but the process in which it became so.

 

[Speedo]

The Constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the USA and other countries that have one and the people, whether by referendum or via elected representatives, cannot make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.

Sorry, but I must have missed the part of the Constitution where it says that marriage is a right.

I'll just said again what I said earlier :

Marriage : legitimate union of two persons under the conditions of the law.

'nuff said.

Semantics. Entirely depends on who you ask.
I say:

Civil union: The legal union of 2 persons as recognized by the government.

Marriage: The union of a man and a woman recognized and performed by a religion.

What makes you right, and not me?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Speedo
Semantics. Entirely depends on who you ask.
I say:

Civil union: The legal union of 2 persons as recognized by the government.

Marriage: The union of a man and a woman recognized and performed by a religion.

What makes you right, and not me?

My dictionnary.
Which is sufficient as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Speedo]

Well darn, I'm defeated.

Oh wait, what do my dictionarys say?

Marriage: "The mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintain a family" - Merriam-Webster

"A legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife" - Cambridge

Guess it's back to square one.

 

[Kev1916]

Originally posted by eyrei


I think the best solution is to use another word to describe the legal union of a gay couple. It is, after all, only a word. Let the Christians have it...

--------


Totally agree nothing wrong with them getting "married" as such, thou would be against them being allowed to adopt children.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Speedo
Well darn, I'm defeated.

Oh wait, what do my dictionarys say?

Marriage: "The mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintain a family" - Merriam-Webster

"A legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife" - Cambridge

Guess it's back to square one.

War of dictionnaries ^^

Ok, two things :

- My definition comes from a french dictionnary. I agree that, in english, the definition can be different, even if "marriage" is supposed to be the translation of "mariage". Well, subtleties and such.
So I withdraw my claim on the fact that marriage just refers to two persons, instead of specifically one man and one woman.

- Still, even in english definitions, there is NO reference to religion, but to "legally" and "institution". So I maintain that marriage has nothing to do with religion

 

[Speedo]

Once again, it's all semantics.

The main point would be, are you (gays/their supporters) willing to compromise and have something, or insist on all or nothing and fight the uproar from people who do see marriage as between a man and a woman?

Amazingly, many of the "evil anti-gay bigots" such as myself only take issue with calling it marriage. But if you want to insist that its marriage or nothing, sorry, you lost me. And if it does continue to be pushed that way, many will began to view it as an "us or them" battle, making thing even worse.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Speedo

Sorry, but I must have missed the part of the Constitution where it says that marriage is a right.

Nobody's saying marriage is a right, not even for heterosexuals. I believe however that the US Constituion does cite the fact that all Americans do have the right to equal treatment under the law

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Speedo
Once again, it's all semantics.

The main point would be, are you (gays/their supporters) willing to compromise and have something, or insist on all or nothing and fight the uproar from people who do see marriage as between a man and a woman?

I consider "marriage" to be simply a union of two persons who love each others and wish to live a couple life.
So yes, I support marriage for gays.
Moreover, if this ever happen in my country, I'll use the french definition of marriage, which imply that gender is unimportant, so that marriage should ALREADY be open to homosexual