Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion.....I want to know where homosexuals will draw the line if/when the next crowd of deviants start screaming for marriage rights? Recall that at one time is was not fathomable that a man could marry another man in the United States.......so please spare me the "that won't happen" tripe and answer the question. Where will you draw the line and under what non-hypocritical rationale will you use?
Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion.....I want to know where homosexuals will draw the line if/when the next crowd of deviants start screaming for marriage rights? Recall that at one time is was not fathomable that a man could marry another man in the United States.......so please spare me the "that won't happen" tripe and answer the question. Where will you draw the line and under what non-hypocritical rationale will you use?
Consent.
That's always been the line, and that always WILL be the line.
One again THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA has found that discrimination exists in California's Proposition 8 which effectively outlawed same-sex marraige.
JUST BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT THAT IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!
The ability to file a claim based on wrongful death,emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop &c;
The ability to inherit real and personal property;
Priority for appointment as a conservator, guardian or representative;
Suvivor benefits under and inclusion in worker's compensation cases;
The ability to adopt a child of a party;
The ability to insure a party in benefit plans;
The ablity to designate a beneficiary;
Protections and coverage under domestic abuse and violence laws;
Rights and protections under victum compensation law.
Married people take these for granted, in many states one or more of these are specifically prohibited for same sex couples.
The problem is that marriage is a "religious" proceedure, which is then recognzied by the federal government. If its a religious proceedure, then the Supreme Court has already ruled that groups have the right to "discriminate" against gays.
The Supreme Court said in a 2000 ruling dealing with gays in the Boy Scouts of America
We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government
The ruling means you can not FORCE groups, to accept "gays"..
This is why Civil Unions would be more acceptable while preserving "marriage" to those seeking the religious contract.
It gets futher blurred though because government has gone on to define what "marriage" is, which crossed the boundry on deciding if "marriage" is a religious proceedure, thus a protected definition..
The problem is that marriage is a "religious" proceedure, which is then recognzied by the federal government. If its a religious proceedure, then the Supreme Court has already ruled that groups (in this case religious groups) have the right to "discriminate"
The Supreme Court said in a 2000 ruling
We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government
The ruling means you can not FORCE groups, to accept "gays"..
No ****. No one has ever argued otherwise, to my knowledge.
Quote:
This is why Civil Unions would be more acceptable while preserving "marriage" to those seeking the religious contract.
Pointless. A disctinction without a difference, and one that would facially violate the First Amendment. Gays in such a "union" can call their relationship a marriage or whatever they like, and there's not much an offended party can do about that.
The government defines the legal relationship. What it means to anyone beyond that isn't the government's business or its prerogative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
