Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down

[Arakhor]

In the 50s, racist white people would gather with signs to claim that abolishing racial segregation was communism, just proving that some groups of people still haven't learnt how to actually use English in 50+ years. They were wrong then, so what about now?

 

[Traitorfish]

You're also ignorant of British affairs, Domination, which is hardly surprising. Although we don't have explicit gay marriage in England, Scotland, Wales etc., we do have civil unions for homosexual couples, which have most if not all of the same legal protections as traditional marriage.

And we'd probably be on our way to full marriage equality, if we didn't have the social pause-button of a government that we do.

I'm for getting the state out of marriage entirely. You want to recieve the benefits of a marriage? Go fill out the paperwork at the courthouse. Father Brown doesn't cut it.

I tend to fall on this side of things, yeah. Take the ambiguity of "marriage" out altogether and create a neutral "civil union" for all, and then call it whatever the hell you want.

Of course, Domination and his ilk will still complain, because gays are allowed to adopt or share their names or hold hands in public or something equally grievous and Unamerican, but they always will.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm for getting the state out of marriage entirely. You want to recieve the benefits of a marriage? Go fill out the paperwork at the courthouse. Father Brown doesn't cut it.

Exactly. Divorce the legal benefits of union from the social status of one. Any loving, consensual relationship must be granted the same legal benefits as any other.

As for marriage, it will be up to people to decide if they're married or not. Whether they want it "officially" done by a priest or some such will be their choice.

---

Now the million dollar question... would this be more or less difficult than just legalising gay marriage?

 

[Arakhor]

I'd be happy with that. Keep legal matters to the courts and registry offices and save the splendid functions for the churches and guildhalls.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You're also ignorant of British affairs, Domination, which is hardly surprising. Although we don't have explicit gay marriage in England, Scotland, Wales etc., we do have civil unions for homosexual couples, which have most if not all of the same legal protections as traditional marriage.

And I support Civil Unions for gay people anyway, with every single one of the same protections save adoption.

Bigot laws are anti-American and unconstitutional. If you really were either a 'strict constructionist' or a 'libertarian', that would be the end of it as far as you were concerned. By opposing gay marriage you prove that you are not what you claim to be.

How is it bigoted, particularly if they are given Civil Unions with similar benefits?

And besides, read the 10th. Unless it is judged to be an unreasonable violation of liberty (Which I don't believe it is) the states can ban it. I do not support a federal ban. If a state wants to allow it, that's their right.

Domination, why should religion views on marriage be at all relevent when talking about legal marriages, ie: civil unions?

I support their right to a Civil Union.

I'm for getting the state out of marriage entirely. You want to recieve the benefits of a marriage? Go fill out the paperwork at the courthouse. Father Brown doesn't cut it.

I would personally make "Benefits of Marriage" a contradiction anyway. Yet another way to simplify the crappy tax code.

In the 50s, racist white people would gather with signs to claim that abolishing racial segregation was communism, just proving that some groups of people still haven't learnt how to actually use English in 50+ years. They were wrong then, so what about now?

They were morons. So what does that have to do with this?

Of course, Domination and his ilk will still complain, because gays are allowed to adopt or share their names or hold hands in public or something equally grievous and Unamerican, but they always will.

I oppose adoption rights for gays, but the latter two are perfectly fine as far as the law is concerned, or at least they should be.

 

[Ajidica]

Now the million dollar question... would this be more or less difficult than just legalising gay marriage?

I'm on the side of more. The nutjob right now has the argument "That evil socialist, anti-american BIG GOVERNMENT wants to take away your marriage!"

They did the same thing with Clintons attempt at UHC, and a year or two later the hypocritical [word] Gingrich tried to take away the same health care that previously they had been 'trying' to defend.

 

[Traitorfish]

Now the million dollar question... would this be more or less difficult than just legalising gay marriage?

I think it would be more readily accepted by moderate Christians, as does not present the same direct challenge to "traditional marriage", but you'd have to overcome a lot of far-right/Evangelical opposition. It was never really about gays or marriage for them, after all, it was about building a beach-head for their spiteful reconquest of American private life. And, as Ajidica says, the fringe have a talent for spinning that sort of thing as Athyist Soshlist Intafeerunss, or whatever they're calling it this week.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm on the side of more. The nutjob right now has the argument "That evil socialist, anti-american BIG GOVERNMENT wants to take away your marriage!"

Well yes, ignorance and fear is unfortunately a rather large issue to combat.

However, we could at least show them that we are not attempting to change marriage's meaning, since we don't want marriage to have any meaning whatsoever. We just want all legal benefits to be vested in a civil union.

You need a license from the government to get the benefits anyway, don't you? Won't require too much upheaval. The church just is entirely optional.

Of course, it's a big might that the conservatives won't cry about it. Anything with gays being equal will upset them. First it was marriage, now it'll be rights. At least it'll be harder for them to mask prejudices, as if it wasn't hard enough.

Some gays might oppose the solution too, simply because they can be just as emotional as any other group and some might construe it as "denying" them marriage. ...but it's all the legal benefits, and they can say they are married. Short of forcing churches to marry gays, that's really all we can do without being complete asshats.

They did the same thing with Clintons attempt at UHC, and a year or two later the hypocritical [word] Gingrich tried to take away the same health care that previously they had been 'trying' to defend.

It's only bad when the other guy does it.

 

[Arakhor]

And I support Civil Unions for gay people anyway, with every single one of the same protections save adoption.

Without referencing the Bible, why is this?

And besides, read the 10th. Unless it is judged to be an unreasonable violation of liberty (Which I don't believe it is) the states can ban it. I do not support a federal ban. If a state wants to allow it, that's their right.

Since we're talking about federal law and the US Constitution, your belief is irrelevant. SCOTUS will define what is an unreasonable violation and, as a "strict constitutionalist", you'll have to live with that.

They were morons. So what does that have to do with this?

So people very close to here screaming about healthcare being SOCIALIST, abortion being MURDER and gay marriage being WRONG don't qualify? Discrimination doesn't go away - it just changes to the next hot topic when the first one is legally supported.

 

[civver_764]

I fully admit that on this one issue my opinion is biased by my beliefs. I'm sure Mobboss can come up with some logical reason that we should not have gay marriage, but I don't pretend to have the logic to do so. I will say however, that doing so does not cause any great harm to gays. I support the traditional family structure. Period. That's just my belief.

How does letting gay people get married in any way hamper your ability to have a "traditional" family?

I don't give a crap about international agreements. As an anarchist, neither should you.

I give a crap about the good ones like human rights because they're human rights =/.

You're not an anarchist though, and I'm pretty sure the constitution says we have to follow international agreements we sign, so what's up with that?

And if gay marriage is a right, the US isn't the only Western country to "Deny them of their rights." So does England and probably other countries.

That's not an argument.

 

[Leonel]

What if in 30 years people who are attracted to animals complain they have the "Right" to marry their sheep? What then?

Sheep can't enter into legally binding agreements.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm pretty sure the constitution says we have to follow international agreements we sign, so what's up with that?

Allow me to say that as a general rule, "unconstitutional" and "constitutional" are only used as arguments if a) it favors you, or b) you've interpreted the Constitution to mean what you believe in.

Conservatives dislike social programs, so it's unconstitutional - even if the damned Supreme Court rules in favor of them.

I dislike plenty of policies liberal or conservative, but I wouldn't say they're unconstitutional. It's a lot more refreshing when people don't butcher the word too.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most sheep can't enter into legally binding agreements.

Fixed.

 

[Arakhor]

Allow me to say that as a general rule, "unconstitutional" and "constitutional" are only used as arguments if a) it favors you, or b) you've interpreted the Constitution to mean what you believe in.

I dislike plenty of policies liberal or conservative, but I wouldn't say they're unconstitutional. It's a lot more refreshing when people don't butcher the word too.

Quoted for absolute truth.

 

[civver_764]

Allow me to say that as a general rule, "unconstitutional" and "constitutional" are only used as arguments if a) it favors you, or b) you've interpreted the Constitution to mean what you believe in.

Conservatives dislike social programs, so it's unconstitutional - even if the damned Supreme Court rules in favor of them.

I dislike plenty of policies liberal or conservative, but I wouldn't say they're unconstitutional. It's a lot more refreshing when people don't butcher the word too.

Yes I agree. The word unconstitutional pisses me off. However he's the one claiming to be a 'strict constitutionalist.'

 

[GhostWriter16]

Without referencing the Bible, why is this?

Because I believe a child has a right to a traditional family.

Since we're talking about federal law and the US Constitution, your belief is irrelevant. SCOTUS will define what is an unreasonable violation and, as a "strict constitutionalist", you'll have to live with that.

Agreed, though the states can still nullify a court order if they feel like it.

So people very close to here screaming about healthcare being SOCIALIST, abortion being MURDER and gay marriage being WRONG don't qualify?

Nope

How does letting gay people get married in any way hamper your ability to have a "traditional" family?

That's not my point.

I give a crap about the good ones like human rights because they're human rights =/.

Yet those who actually abuse human rights continue to do so. Thus the UN is powerless and irrelevant.

You're not an anarchist though, and I'm pretty sure the constitution says we have to follow international agreements we sign, so what's up with that?

I am still opposed to US membership in the UN anyway so whatever.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because I believe a child has a right to a traditional family.

Why? Since when were people entitled to 1950s American social norms? What about stay-at-home dads, or single parents? What about grandparents who raise or help raise their children? (Noting that, for many cultures, it is this which is traditional, and not the nuclear family of American national mythology.)

 

[civver_764]

That's not my point.

So you're forcing other people to accept your definition of a traditional family. That's about as un-libertarian as you can get.

 

[Arakhor]

Because I believe a child has a right to a traditional family.

I asked you to explain why, not just restate your opinion in a different fashion.

 

[CaptainF]

"The constitution should be followed to the letter! Religion should stay out of government! People are all created equal! Except when they're gay, cuz ya know that's just icky.

Also, everyone has the right to believe what they want. But because I'm a Christian, I think it's a-ok to decide how other people should live their lives and what they can and cannot do. It's all fair right?

Some may call me a hypocrite, but I have a very famous dead preacher on my side who shall once day return to save me! Man, I do love having a limited, simplistic view of the world."