About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

I asked where it stated in the law that marriage is a civil union between man and woman. You didn't provide it, you pointed to prop 8, which is not the original law, it was added to it. Again, if I gather enough support to pass a prop that says marriage is a civil union between two gay people, will you say heterosexuals can't marry?

---

I hunt for the truth

Tyranny of the majority, if anything, is actually worse. By your logic, so long as the majority thinks it's right, so what? If the majority thinks that all people should be killed when they are 70 years old, would you agree that the people decided and it should be law?And while California has a reputation for being liberal, the southern portion is quite conservative. Besides, it's like saying Virginia is really conservative (CA has Ah-nuld, VA has Kaine). And the margin of victory? 52.3 to 47.7. A 4.5 point spread. A much smaller spread than the previous iniative to vote down gay marriage rights. And it may have been unconstitutional.Besides, there's always the 9th amendment to the US constitution, which seems to protect rights not stipulated in the document (at least, that's how it's currently interpretated). And since federal law overrides state law, prop 8 would be illegal because it denies a right to a group of people.

(1) What part of "rhetorical" don't you understand? Hint: STHU(2) Your side of hate won. What the hell are you here for? This thread is for those of us who still have some decency left in us to bitch about prop 8.(3) Have I said STHU yet?

I've never seen such a pitiful bunch of whiners in my life. Not even a popular vote is enough to make you guppies understand that "marriage" means a civil union between one man and one woman. While I support civil unions between homosexuals, I don't regard such contracts as marriages. Furthermore, I don't think a men's room should be regarded as a ladies' room, either, just because some group of people might think it's the right way to go (no pun intended). So let's all be friends and I try go along with established social practices. It's kinda like civilization, you know.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

Government should only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to the churches.Moose

Exactly! Why should anyone have a problem with this. It solves everything; it even helps a little to get the government out of our lives and our bedrooms. I should think the conservatives would embrace this concept. I would have no good reason or cause to refute a covenant bestowed upon any two people in the name of marriage if the matter was settled outside the law. I don't care what the churches do, anyway, since I'm an atheist.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

What you're saying is give gay and straight people the exact same rights under law, but don't call it marriage? In other words, take the word marriage out of the law and call it just "civil union" for everybody?I don't see a problem with that.

---

I hunt for the truth

While I do agree that anything that gets the government out of our lives is a good thing, are you suggesting that only couples that are involved in a particular religion gets to hold the tittle of "married"? What about those who do not attend any type of religious organization? Do those people only get civil unions as well? Wouldn't this continue this trend of bestowing rights and tittles to some groups while denying it to others?Edited by rueh, : Haven't had my coffee yet.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

It's just a title, what does this matter, as long as they have the same rights? Only titles I'd say. If people "marry" by law, they should ALL get equal rights. People who ONLY "marry" by churches shouldn't get those rights, churches aren't governments.To clarify I'll give an example.In my country, people can either marry by law and by the church, or only by law. One cannot gain or lose ANY rights by ONLY marrying by the church. I don't see a problem in arranging this so that all people can do this. In fact, in my country ALL people CAN get married only by law, I don't see a problem though with calling ALL marriages by law civil unions, and all marriages by church marriages, as long as no rights are lost or won by marrying ONLY by church.

---

I hunt for the truth

Well what I worry about, is that it gives precedence for further laws to be enacted that would establish seperate rights to each group. No matter how well we try to make the two designations equal. We would eventualy see one group or the other petioning for certain rights that would be excluded from the other. I know this is all hypothetical so really it has no legs for argument, I just feel that eventually you will have one group not wanting to acknowledge the rights of the other. I don't think this requires to much of a stretch of the imagination, since we already see this occuring to the homosexual community.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Well, american citizens, for example, cannot be knighted. I'm not sure if you could equate marriage with noble titles, and I don't think that's where rueh was going.

Bottom line is I don't care what they call it, as long as everyone gets equal rights.

---

I hunt for the truth

If a government(s) went to the huge hassle of rewriting all laws to avoid using the word "marriage" it wouldn't help the anti-gays a tiny little bit.Anyone can form any kind of organization and grant a marriage to anyone. It would have no meaning in law and therefore no control in law.In fact, this approach would open the word "marriage" to anything that anyone wanted to call a marriage (to your dog?) while civil unions would be the word that keeps some meaning.Anyone who suggests that just having civil unions for all is a solution to the conflict hasn't thought it through. It would be a fair and good thing to do but would be much, much more expensive and complicated than just opening up a legally defined marriage to those who should get it and it would have exactly the effect that the anti-gay crowd are afraid of: it would degrade the meaning of the word marriage by leaving it with no meaning at all.

While I appreciate the effort, what you are suggesting has a huge potential to become another "seperate but equal" crap. For example, several states have already passed a prop saying only "married" couples could adopt children. I'm sure the haters will be able to come up with some very creative "seperate but equal" bullshit to keep it anything but equal.I'm sorry, based on our experience with this approach, I just don't have confidence in our fellow man.Added by edit.I just noticed that you're not from the USA. I don't know the history of your country, but over here some of my fellow Americans have come up with some pretty darn creative ways to keep things from being equal under the seperate-but-equal system. Having known some people that went through that bullshit, I really don't have confidence in such a system.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Well after working for the government for the past 10 years I can honestly say. They have no problem throwing a ton of money to correct the most minor of things. I don't see how this is any different than other ridiculous projects the government has spent millions on.
However I agree that in your proposal the term marriage, if allowed to be bestowed without legal rights by organizations, does degrade the meaning of the word.
As a side note, from someone who has been married I think we should allow homosexuals to marry. That way everyone can be just as unhappy as everyone else

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX