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.
What makes you feel that "marriage" is owned by some entity and/or is beyond the ability to be modified?
Certainly you realize that the concept of marriage predates the Abrahamic religions, right?
Where do I suggest anything about who owns "marriage?
I hesitate to bring up religion, but the first marriage was between Adam and Eve. Can't go much further back than that to talk about the conception of marriage.
You have simply highlighted my point. Fight to have civil unions be recognized as equal to traditional marriage. Fight to have those 1400 civil rights included in civil unions.
I'm Black. If "marriage" was a ceremony that was deeply entrenched in a religion that explicitly said that I was an abomination/was doomed to hell/etc, I would would NOTHING to do with "marriage". Some of the gay people on this very forum have a HUGE problem with anything that has anything to do with religion, so it boggles the mind that you want to participate in something that is so deeply entrenched in religious dogma.
I already addressed that. Here, I'll post it again:
"It's not our (by "our" I mean the gays) fault that you guys made a poor choice in calling this civil law "marriage". That doesn't mean, however, that because of what you called it I should be denied it. I don't give a flying **** what it's called (as long as it's called the same thing for everybody). I just want access to it, and as long as it's called "civil marriage", then I want to be able to get civilly married."
The 14th Amendment says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It doesn't say:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, except when the law uses an emotionally charged word precious to a subset of Americans. In that case, the law can be specially reserved for that subset at the exclusion of other groups of Americans."
The reason why states regulate marriage is because states have an interest in regulating marriage. The presumption that marriage stabilized couples led to the conclusion that marriage had a stabilizing influence on society, and that benefits a society because people prefer to invest in stable social systems rather than unstable social systems.
Given the foundation for states' interest in regulating marriage, the legal question becomes how same-sex marriage works against the interests of the state. Because if same-sex marriage does not work against the interests of the state, then the state should have no interest in regulating against it. In which case, regulations against it are purely discriminatory, and such discrimination is against the Constitution.
Surprisingly, I agree with you 100%, Ed. When gay people pull out the "black card" to help prove their position, I find it distasteful.
Honestly, it gives off a "Black people, who were relegated to the status of second-class citizens, get to do this...so surely we (white) gays should get to do it too" vibe. Nevermind that it's pointed out that the issue was RACE and NOT a redefinition of marriage (between a man and a woman).
Again, extremely distasteful and it just proves that they have no independent leg to stand on.
Love who you want, but don't discover this phony new-found kinship with black people when it suits your agenda.
What an awful post. Reasonable people draw reasonable comparisons between two situations. There is no requirement that they be 100% the same, and it certainly doesn't indicate that gays or their supporters are disparaging the fight for racial equality. Total strawman bs on your part.
In Virginia prior to 1967, marriage was defined as being between one race and a member of the same race. It was equally as unconstitutional, as the ruling Loving v. Virginia found.
The residents of Virginia liked their law too.
Different scenario. There was never a federal prohibition against interracial marriage and a minority of states had such laws. Also blacks by virtue of their race alone were barred from entering an institution much like they were barred from schools, restaurants etc.
In light of recent legislative and constitutional challenges the case was adjudicated correctly. What gays seek to do is change the meaning of marriage but they are not denied entry into a marriage like Blacks were.
By kinship I mean that I find that gays who use the "black card" are pretending to have some kind of kinship with blacks when they really don't. However, we're an easy and useful pawn when using us fits your agenda. And yes, I find that offensive.
We can agree to disagree here, I guess. Drawing a parallel doesn't imply any "kinship" exists. It is simply pointing out a similar scenario. Anyone who denies the similarity between the scenarios of gay marriage an interracial marriage simply isn't being honest about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
Again, you and I are having different arguments. I'm not for anyone being denied their rights. To do that would be a smack in the face to all of the people who fought and died for blacks to get our civil rights. I just believe that these rights should not hinge on being married. But I fully support civil unions being seen as equal in the eyes of the law.
But "marriage" is the current legal term. Until they change the legal term to "civil union" for everyone, what other word can you use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
Yes, many blacks are religious. And therein lies the reason for the disagreement with gay marriage. However, I would wager that most blacks are like I am. While we don't agree with it (some for religious beliefs), we aren't going to march in the streets against it. At best, we'll simply shake our heads when/if gay marriage is allowed.
And I believe that would be fine with 99.9% of the proponents of same sex marriages, honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
There is no reason to have any sort of divorce re: the gay struggle. Unless you are gay and black, the gay struggle is not a struggle that is shared with blacks. It is NOT an equal comparison. And honestly, considering the history of blacks in the US, I find the need or compulsion to make the comparison HIGHLY insulting and offensive.
Again, not *shared* but *similar*, especially with regards to marriage rights.
By kinship I mean that I find that gays who use the "black card" are pretending to have some kind of kinship with blacks when they really don't.
I find your argument equally offensive. While I would agree that their is little in the history of African American vs gay discrimination that fact remains that just like the Civil Rights movement, the movements of gays, women's or he any other class of Americans who have been denied the full rights and benefits of citizenship are exactly the same. I find nothing offensive about these subsequent movements claiming either inspiration or commonality with the Civil Rights movement because the core foundation of them all is the furtherance of the rights of human beings to enjoy the fruits of liberty. In fact I find it to be a great source of pride because by comparing themselves to the Civil Rights movement of African Americans they give recognition to African Americans for bringing about social justice for all mankind.
Disagreeing with gay marriage does not mean that you hate homosexuals or believe them to be inferior.
Actually, usually it does, because many of the reasons behind it are based on ridiculous stereotypes, misinformation and religious fanaticism and hypocrisy. Specifically, if you feel that homosexuals should not be allowed to use the term "marriage", there is no logical conclusion to be made other than that you believe that homosexual unions, and therefore homosexuals themselves, are inferior to heterosexuals unions and heterosexuals themselves.
Different scenario. There was never a federal prohibition against interracial marriage and a minority of states had such laws. Also blacks by virtue of their race alone were barred from entering an institution much like they were barred from schools, restaurants etc.
In light of recent legislative and constitutional challenges the case was adjudicated correctly. What gays seek to do is change the meaning of marriage but they are not denied entry into a marriage like Blacks were.
A minority of states had such laws? Um, you need to study history a little more closely.
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.
