Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Redfish]

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

many liberals are involved in opposite sex marriages, what would you do with them?

 

[bodecea]

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

Nope, that would be unconstitutional...Civil marriages...gay and straight...would be redesignated as "civil unions." Many religious people already believe that you're not really "married" if you only see a Justice of the Peace or the secular equivalent. If you will be calling something "civil unions"....it is all civil....er....unions. I don't know any gay couples who have a problem with that. Why would you have a problem with going to a Justice of the Peace for a civil union as long as it has all the rights, protections, and benefits that the old "civil marriage" had.

BTW...I'm also married religiously as are many gay couples I know....so I'd still be married...as well as civilly unioned.

 

[Unkotare]

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

Nope, that would be unconstitutional...

No, it would not.

 

[bodecea]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

Answer this one for us. What is it particular to legal gay marriage that opens the door for bigamy and polygamy......that isn't ALREADY an open door due to legal straight marriage?

OMG, are you really that dumb?

Not seeing an answer to my question there, Redfish.

 

[Faun]

but it won't, the dialog from the gays and libs on this message board verify that the whole issue is that they insist on using the word marriage. its not about equality, its about the word.

That's absolutely correct. Gays should have access to exactly the rights as straights. They should be allowed to marry the person of their choice just the same as a straight person can.

And I'm still waiting for an answer ... do you think the Constitution provides equal protection for gays so that they can "marry" the person they want to, regardless of gender? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer?

I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as man/woman couples. the word "marry" does not do that. A legal civil union would.

Of course the word, "marry," is inclusive. You can't tell one group of people they can marry, but another group that because of gender, they can only civilly union. The state cannot issue a "marriage license" to one person, but then deny a "marriage license" to another for no reason other than gender.

So does the Constitution protect gay peoples' rights to "marry?" Yes or no?

I wish you would admit that your real agenda is to force the country to accept homosexuality as normal and equally acceptable as biological heterosexuality.

trouble is, its not and never will be. homosexuality is a perversion, whether it is chosen or genetic does not matter.

I can't admit that because that is not my agenda. My only interest is protecting the Constitution. In reality, it has nothing to do with gays other than they are the group being denied equal protection guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

many liberals are involved in opposite sex marriages, what would you do with them?

Civil Unions all around...unless you are also married in church/temple/whatever.....Like we are.

 

[Redfish]

That's absolutely correct. Gays should have access to exactly the rights as straights. They should be allowed to marry the person of their choice just the same as a straight person can.

And I'm still waiting for an answer ... do you think the Constitution provides equal protection for gays so that they can "marry" the person they want to, regardless of gender? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer?

I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as man/woman couples. the word "marry" does not do that. A legal civil union would.

Of course the word, "marry," is inclusive. You can't tell one group of people they can marry, but another group that because of gender, they can only civilly union. The state cannot issue a "marriage license" to one person, but then deny a "marriage license" to another for no reason other than gender.

So does the Constitution protect gay peoples' rights to "marry?" Yes or no?

I wish you would admit that your real agenda is to force the country to accept homosexuality as normal and equally acceptable as biological heterosexuality.

trouble is, its not and never will be. homosexuality is a perversion, whether it is chosen or genetic does not matter.

I can't admit that because that is not my agenda. My only interest is protecting the Constitution. In reality, it has nothing to do with gays other than they are the group being denied equal protection guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

they can get equal protection as guaranteed by the constitution without the word marriage. you know that, I know that, everyone knows that. But thats not what it is about---------its about forcing the gay agenda on the entire country by mandating that gay can "marry".

its about forcing the rest of us to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition equal and interchangable with heterosexuality-------but its not and never will be.

 

[Faun]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

Arguing the absurd is not helping your argument.

its not the least bit absurd. the ACLU would have a field day with it, and SCOTUS would have the gay marriage precedent and could not rule against them.

I hate to use the slippery slope analogy here, but it applies.

It is absurd and it doesn't apply. Gays are denied equal protection based on gender, which the Constitution forbids.

On what grounds does banning bigamy or polygamy discriminate?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, but our laws are made by majority vote. the constituion was ratified by majority vote, the congress makes laws by majority vote, we select our representatives by majority vote.

the judicial branch exists to enforce the laws that WE make, not to make their own, or to interpret those which have been made.

When judges begin to "interpret" thats when the trouble starts.

You couldn't be more wrong. Interpreting the Constitution is a function of the Judicial branch.

Exactly who is it you think is supposed to interpret the Constitution in gray areas if not the Judicial branch?

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

How can we take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands of state and federal court decisions interpreting what various parts of the Constitution mean....

Take the First Amendment...does my Freedom of Speech include burning the flag? Telling state secrets out loud? Threatening the President of the United States? Where is the "crystal clear" there?

 

[Redfish]

Arguing the absurd is not helping your argument.

its not the least bit absurd. the ACLU would have a field day with it, and SCOTUS would have the gay marriage precedent and could not rule against them.

I hate to use the slippery slope analogy here, but it applies.

It is absurd and it doesn't apply. Gays are denied equal protection based on gender, which the Constitution forbids.

On what grounds does banning bigamy or polygamy discriminate?

gays should, and do, have equal protection under the law.

banning bigamy and polygamy would discriminate against bigamists and polygamists. why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[Faun]

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

So what if it's long been established? Times change. Gays have no problem sharing "marriage" with straights, it's Conservatives who have a problem sharing it with gays. Since the Conservative solution is to call gay marriage something different from the right to marry they enjoy, let straights have civil unions and let gays marry.

You don't want that, no doubt -- neither do gays.

Equal protection under the law doesn't permit one person to marry while not allowing another for no reason other than gender.

 

[Redfish]

You couldn't be more wrong. Interpreting the Constitution is a function of the Judicial branch.

Exactly who is it you think is supposed to interpret the Constitution in gray areas if not the Judicial branch?

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

How can we take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands of state and federal court decisions interpreting what various parts of the Constitution mean....

Take the First Amendment...does my Freedom of Speech include burning the flag? Telling state secrets out loud? Threatening the President of the United States? Where is the "crystal clear" there?

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution.

treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

 

[Unkotare]

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

So what if it's long been established? Times change.

You're avoiding my question. Would the above conditions satisfy you or not?

 

[Redfish]

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

So what if it's long been established? Times change. Gays have no problem sharing "marriage" with straights, it's Conservatives who have a problem sharing it with gays. Since the Conservative solution is to call gay marriage something different from the right to marry they enjoy, let straights have civil unions and let gays marry.

You don't want that, no doubt -- neither do gays.

Equal protection under the law doesn't permit one person to marry while not allowing another for no reason other than gender.

sexual orientation is not gender.

 

[bodecea]

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

Don't be ridiculous, of course they're not the same. If they were the same in function, they would be the same in name. For example, a couple in a civil union cannot file their taxes jointly, like a married couple can. And there are other benefits for married couples not afforded to civil union couples.

There is simply no legal reason whatsoever to deny gay people the same right to marry the person they love while straight people are privy to that very right.

They are not the same and there is no constitutional reason

Except...starting next month...thousands of gay couples are going to start filing their federal income tax jointly, in states that do not recognize their marriage......this is going to be interesting.

 

[bodecea]

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

How can we take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands of state and federal court decisions interpreting what various parts of the Constitution mean....

Take the First Amendment...does my Freedom of Speech include burning the flag? Telling state secrets out loud? Threatening the President of the United States? Where is the "crystal clear" there?

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution. treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Wow! Your U.S. Government teacher failed you horribly.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

So what if it's long been established? Times change. Gays have no problem sharing "marriage" with straights, it's Conservatives who have a problem sharing it with gays. Since the Conservative solution is to call gay marriage something different from the right to marry they enjoy, let straights have civil unions and let gays marry.

You don't want that, no doubt -- neither do gays.

Equal protection under the law doesn't permit one person to marry while not allowing another for no reason other than gender.

sexual orientation is not gender.

It's about the gender of the person they want to marry.

 

[Redfish]

How can we take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands of state and federal court decisions interpreting what various parts of the Constitution mean....

Take the First Amendment...does my Freedom of Speech include burning the flag? Telling state secrets out loud? Threatening the President of the United States? Where is the "crystal clear" there?

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution. treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Wow! Your U.S. Government teacher failed you horribly.

not at all. look up the word "interpret". the court should not be making law via rulings.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

So what if it's long been established? Times change. Gays have no problem sharing "marriage" with straights, it's Conservatives who have a problem sharing it with gays. Since the Conservative solution is to call gay marriage something different from the right to marry they enjoy, let straights have civil unions and let gays marry.

You don't want that, no doubt -- neither do gays.

Equal protection under the law doesn't permit one person to marry while not allowing another for no reason other than gender.

sexual orientation is not gender.

You are correct....and a gay man and gay women are NOT prevented from marrying in all 50 states due to their orientation, are they?

But a straight woman and a straight woman would be prevented from marrying due to their gender....NOT their orientation, wouldn't they?

It's gender discrimination.

 

[Faun]

there are no gray areas in the constitution, it is literally crystal clear. The founders drafted a marvelous document, there are no gray areas except in the minds of those who choose to ignore parts of it.

How can we take you seriously if you say stuff like that? You are completely ignoring the thousands upon thousands of state and federal court decisions interpreting what various parts of the Constitution mean....

Take the First Amendment...does my Freedom of Speech include burning the flag? Telling state secrets out loud? Threatening the President of the United States? Where is the "crystal clear" there?

the job of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower courts. It is not their job to "interpret" the constitution.

treason and attempted murder are clearly unconstitutional.

Exactly how does the U.S.S.C. rule on the constitutionality of ruling without interpreting the Constitution?