Prop 8 Goes the Way of the Dodo

Remove all ads!

I think you need to go back and read what I posted. I do believe that blacks and women can be impartial in cases involving blacks or women. I also believe that homosexuals can be impartial in cases that involve homosexuals. Where I do not believe anyone can be impartial is in cases where they may derive a persoanal benefit and that is clearly the case here.

I also have no desire to deny homosexuals any rights. I just don't believe the use of the word "marriage" is a right.

You are confusing what I said with what I quoted the other guy said. However, I'm not even sure that the other guy is against giving homosexuals the same rights. I think he was just giving the historical reasons why there were benefits given to married couples. It wasn't done for evil purposes, it was done as the traditional family unit has historically been the most stable, which may not be the case any more.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

I like how you jumped on the part of the article that didn't answer the question you asked to deflect the part that did answer your question. Well done.

 

So in order to find an impartial judge, I just have one question. who actually benefits from denying them the right to marry and use the word marriage?

 

Snook,
I stand with what I wrote, and I ignored the rest of that article because it was unpersuasive, largely since it ignores the reality of homosexual couples living with each other (the horror), at times with children (THE HORROR). That reality poses a set of very tricky and messy legal problems that are best solved with something akin to marriage.

We are talking about end-of-life decisions among partners, inheritance, questions of child care etc. pp. You apparently neither have an idea nor an interest to imagine how difficult it is for homosexual couples to settle these things satisfactorily by contract. What happens to the young children of a homosexual partnership if the biological parent dies? Usually, if there has not been an adoption (complicated, costly), the other parent will be denied care, never mind that he or she may have helped raising the kid. Problem. In case of a split in such a relationship, that about such a construct? The adoption would have to be revoked. Difficult. Messy. I could go on.

But no, marriage is sacred, so let them have it? It is not the idea of law to make life intentionally difficult for some fellow citizens, so that the rest feels better about themselves.

I like marriage a lot (and being unmarried, it may be easy to), but that is beside the point: There are already homosexual couples who are raising children. They may not be many, but they are there. The problems of decision making, inheritance and the like are everyday problems as well. There is no reason from a child care or raising point of view to deny homosexual couples a workable legal framework, and to work satisfactorily such a framework will need to have many of the elements that characterize marriage. If you don't like it, too bad - it's still a reality.

I give a damn how it is called, for simplicity's sake call it a civil union, while claiming to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage (which, since I am catholic, is a thing you settle with your priest anyway). This is a real legal problem, a really messy one, and the civil union is the most practical and sensible solution. The only thing that disallowing civil unions does is to increase the workload of the courts, imposing costs on the public.

Even if prop8 turns out to be constitutional, what would surprise me, it is still an ideological law, that does not aim on solving practical legal problems - as laws IMO should - but that was conceived to deal with the advancement of political goals instead.

 

No. You said you liked the article; granted, you said "some" of it, but I assumed you liked (and therefore agreed with) the parts you quoted unless you specifically stated otherwise (like you did with the boy scout analogy). But whatever.

I disagree; that seemed to me to be a major component of his argument. And I don't think the term "evil" applies here; "out-dated" would be better.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the homosexual community really cared about the "rights" they would have spent their effort on gaining the "rights". Instead they spend all of their effort on getting the word "marriage" which if anything hurts their cause for it clearly upsets a lot of people. If they really cared about the rights, and they focused on them instead, they probably would have them all by now. Instead they are trying to use the legislature and the judiciary for acceptance. In my opinion they will be sadly disappointed.

It wasn't so long ago that the word "gay" meant happy. As an example imagine that heterosexuals everywhere decided they wanted to take back the word "gay" to mean happy and they in droves they joined "gay" groups and took them all over and in "gay" parades they dominated them with floats of happy people. What if people starting walking around with "gay pride" buttons that were just smilie faces? I'm guessing the homosexual community would be very upset to lose the word "gay". I see it as the same thing.

 

Are you for real? are you really so stupid, that you think denying million of peoples equal rights in the eye of the law is acceptable over a word? also you didn't answer my question, who benifits from denying homosexuals equal rights? and to follow it up, since you apparently wants this discussion about rights, to be about semantics, who suffers from sharing the word marriage with the homosexuals?

 

The term 'gay' meant homosexual back in the 30's ... perhaps even earlier.

 

Took this off wikipedia.

When they say EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS, that's exactly it. Why wouldn't they be able to marry as any other heterosexual couple. EQUALITY is what they're after.

Oh, and black people wanting equal rights probably also "upset a lot of people" at the time.

 

I don't think that is what Snook is saying. He is saying that the term "marriage" sets off red lights in some people (espeically the orthodox religious crowd, who believe they have sole ownership of the term marriage). He's not saying he is one of them (I think).

 

Yes, I'm for real and I don't appreciate the personal attack on my intelligence. However, I will respond to you anyway.

First of all homosexuals aren't any where as oppressed as you are trying to make them out to be. They are not considered property, they can vote, they can work, they can go to school, etc. If anything they are a protected class of citizens which actually gives them super rights. If someone beats up someone because they are homosexual that is called a "hate crime" and the perp does additional jail time. If an employer fires someone because they are homosexual the government will sue the employer and the fired employee can expect a cash settlement. These are just two examples of things that don't happen if someone is from a non-protected class. Note, I'm not looking for a pity party for heterosexuals, I'm just pointing out that there is a drastic difference between the plight of homosexuals and black people pre the civil rights movement.

The only rights that homosexuals don't currently have are rights that only married heterosexuals have and the majority of them deal with estate and health care planning. Be aware that single heterosexual people do not have these rights either. About the only one that I can think of off the top of my head that single heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not is the right of custody and visitiation for natural born children (considering in a homosexual couple only one "parent" ends up on the birth certificate).

Now lacking some of these rights are actually a benefit as it can exempt a broken up couple from alimony and child support. I also previously mentioned that it exempts the homosexual couple from the "marriage tax" which is a flaw in the U.S. tax system that Bush fixed, but Obama is going to restore in which two single people combined pay less taxes then the same two people would if they got married.

I personally believe that homosexual couples should be entitled to all the pains and pleasures that heterosexual married couples enjoy. I also believe that this would be far easier to convince our legislatures of, and the general population would probably also be more agreeable for when explained rationally most people see the inequity.

Now you asked who suffers from sharing the word "marriage". The short answer is people of faith be they conservative (like the Mormons who voted for Prop 8) or liberal (like the black people who overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop 8). To be honest it was probably Obama running for President that caused Prop 8 to pass for if the black people had stayed home it probably wouldn't have passed. People of faith be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim believe that marriage is a sacred act between God and the couple. The fact that the state charges them a fee to get a marriage license does not factor into the equation or make it a government function in their eyes. As you are probably aware there are branches of the Christian religion, and I believe all Muslims consider homosexuality a crime against God (I do not believe the Jews have a position on it either way). Therefore there are a lot of people that when this button is pushed go ballistic. That is why I believe that the "homosexual lobby" isn't really about getting the rights it is about getting the "word" and trying to force acceptance on people who will not accept it.

I don't consider this smart at all. The homosexuals should campaign for the rights they deserve, have their civil unions, and live peacefully with their neighbors. That is the way towards getting true acceptance, not trying to ram it down people's throats.

 

I'm not sure I wanted that image in my head....

 

You're own argument kind of defeats itself, here. If you beat up a homosexual and didn't know he was gay, it isn't a hate crime. If you fire a homosexual for incompetence or unprofessional behavior, the homosexual will have no grounds to sue. Add to that the simple fact that beating up a white man because he is white qualifies as a hate crime and firing an employee because he is white qualifies as discrimination, and your argument [that homosexuals are entitled to more protection than regular Americans] falls flat. Sure, homosexuals are protected by the government. Then again, so are educated white protestant males.

Please. That certain rights come with responsibilities attached does not make denying such rights to someone a "benefit".

Actually, Obama only rolled that back for couples earning more than $250,000 per year. For the other 98% of us, there is no "marriage tax."

Part of equality entails equal treatment. "Separate but equal" had its time in the sun, but we left it behind for a reason. If homosexuals are restricted only to "civil unions," so should everyone else -- and this isn't really a bad idea, either. After all, if "marriage" is so sacred, then the government has no place administering them. It's a great compromise, since everyone will be equally unhappy.

 

On the first one, I'm not quite sure you have that correct. Obama is restoring the marriage tax by doing nothing to continue the Bush tax cuts. Since the marriage tax existed before Bush got rid of it, if everything he did is expiring it will be back.

As to your second point it is a very valid point. Maybe the answer is to have all of the county clerks in the country change the forms to say "civil union license". The people who care about the term marriage won't care as in the eyes of God they are married. Although something tells me the homosexuals who are looking for acceptance will be sorely disappointed in the result.

 

Snook is for real, but his track record on the Boards suggests that he is definitely not stupid. His opinions may differ from yours (and mine), but that doesn't make him an idiot. Let's leave the personal attacks alone, and stick to the issues.

 

I looked it up on FactCheck.org before posting and I'm inclined to agree with their conclusions. This recent article also supports their conclusion.

 

Yep. Views on this topic are not so much a question of intelligence but one of worldview. Snook is very much for real. But I can't leave it at Snook's views differing from mine - while he certainly isn't stupid, I frankly think he is wrong here.

 

I understand Snook's arguement, but I see it failing in one aspect: every time gays have petitioned for 'civil unions', they've ended up with fewer rights than full marriage grants. If you want equal protection under the law, it has to be the same law. Seperate but equal never worked.

 

I am not aware of any situations where civil unions or having the rights attached to them have been an issue.

 

Issues exist. In 2008, the New Jersey Civil Union Review commission conducted a study finding that, among other things, many employers refused to offer same-sex couples who've had "civil unions" the same health insurance benefits as "married" couples. Massachusetts, then the only state to allow gay marriage, did not have the same problems.

Here is a link to the comission's final report. Be warned, though. It's a pdf.

 

If homosexuals are considered equal under the law (which they are), then they should be entitled the exact same rights that heterosexuals are. They shouldn't have to 'settle' for civil unions so some sort of fagg... *****. It's amazing that otherwise intelligent people seem to struggle with this basic concept.

I honestly never understood the strong opposition of heterosexuals to homosexual marriage. How on earth does two homos getting married effect the quality of a marriage between two heteros? Why is this even still an issue?

If I were a homo, I honestly wouldn't give a **** if a bunch of ********s were angered by the thought of me marrying the man I love, I'd tell them to go **** their partner. You don't go begging for equal rights with cap in hand, YOU DEMAND THEM. The homos should band together and do what the Women's Suffrage movement did (ie. tear the place up and create chaos).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that marriage should not exist at all. Married couples should not receive government benefits that individuals or non-married couples do not. That's discriminatory. However, I'm of the opinion that if we must retain the outdated institution of marriage, at least grant that right to homosexuals to remain consistent.