|
Author
|
Topic: Gay marriage and the law
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Some, not including myself, would argue that homosexuals are being treated just the same as heterosexuals and that no violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been made by the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals.
Again, some would argue that no fundamental right has been violated because anyone, reguardless if he's homosexual or heterosexual, is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Yes you are also free to marry the ugliest most obnoxious selfish filth encrusted odoriferous person of the opposite sex you know. It's all in how you look at "freedom" eh? But the issue is not whether people are free to marry the spouse of their desires, but whether they have the same legal rights and benefits under all laws and conventions as other people living in similar situations, or does the law give privileges to some that it restricts others from having. The poll tax was used to keep certain people from voting, but they were always just as free as everyone else to pay the tax to vote eh?
I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I'm saying that the only way for us to solve this problem is for new legislation, because the old legislations were never meant to apply to same sex marriage. I'd say replace all legal reference to marriage with "civil union" so that religions can have marriages as they choose (gay, hetero, multi, whatever), but that the legal benefits are available to all with equal acceptance. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : laws
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by teen4christ, posted 01-16-2008 6:41 PM | | teen4christ has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
I'm having a hard time believing that separate could ever be equal. I'm not saying separate but equal -- everyone can have a civil union. That is the only legal option. All it amounts to is a legal contract, for mutual support, registered with the state. Such contracts can also be dissolved by mutual consent or buy-out (with result registered). People can also have a religious ceremony at the church of their choice to make additional vows, celebrate, etc. That part is optional for anyone (and you can always start a church if you can't find one you like eh?) Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
gay marriage does not go far enough.
Is there a reason why you think same sex marriage would ruin your marriage?
Is there a reason why you think gay people getting a secular marriage would ruin your marriage? Why do you think I think it would?
Again, some southern states were willing to close down all their public schools rather than allow African American school children to attend the same schools as the white children. What you are proposing sounds eerily similar to what the southern states wanted to do. It's like burning your cherished book just so someone else couldn't read it. You seem to have a confused interpretation of my comments, perhaps you are trying to read too much into them.
Again, American history tells us that marriage has always been a secular institution. Why on Earth would we want to get rid of it?
I'm having trouble understanding why we should get rid of it just because a minority group of people wanted the same rights. If the only way to get equal rights for a minority group is to call it something else then let's call it something else - for everyone. Changing all the laws that refer to "marriage" to refer to "civil union" and letting anyone have a "civil union" that wants one is neither doing away with the secular institution nor does it restrict people from having optional ceremonies of their choice. What would be hilarious to me, would be to do an end run around the fanatic fundies, one that ends up providing more rights to more people than would have occurred had they not raised a stink about gay marriage. What's wrong with polygamy and polyandry between consenting adults? What's wrong with a commune of consenting adults all living under one mutual support contract? What's wrong with two people forming a family without having sexual relations (say two single moms)? You can define "civil union" to include all of these kinds of families, and accomplish more real change than just with gay marriage. Is there a reason why you think such contracts would ruin your family? If "civil union" has bad vibes, then let's call it a "family contract" and focus on the real issue of it being a contract for mutual support, taking care of dependents (young or old) and shared benefits.  A truly "rainbow" coalition. Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by teen4christ, posted 01-18-2008 12:14 PM | | teen4christ has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Nice dodge, CS
I don't have a problem with gay people having equal access to federal and state benefits. I do have a problem with changing the understood definition of marriage without considering the ramifications that it will have on thousands of laws. So we pass a law that changes all statutes and legal documents from "marriage" to "family contract" and allow any group (2+) to form a "family" by entering into a legal contract. You can now keep your precious definition to use as you see fit. Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: gay marriage does not go far enough.
Since you don't want gay people to get married, ... Read my words. Read them again and when you are done read them a third time. Maybe -- just maybe -- doing it enough times will let it sink in that
THAT IS NOT MY POSITION
AND NEVER HAS BEEN Sheesh.  (sometimes you need a hint, sometimes you need a hammer). And while you are at that reading, Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: gay marriage does not go far enough.
How is calling it something else achieving equal rights? Because what you call it is completely and totally immaterial. What is important is the equal rights. If we call it "humage" and we let anyone enter into humage that wants to enter into humage, then there is no discrimination on who can enter into humage. If we change the legal laws that refer to marriage in any way to refer instead to humage, then everyone that enters into humage gets the benefit of humage, and there is no discrimination on who can get the benefits of humage. Those that have an emotional tie to the word "marriage" or think that it has some special privileged religious significance can keep their precious definition, but it will have no effect on the secular institution of humage. Capice? Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: gay marriage does not go far enough.
Then explain to me why you are advocating a scourge earth policy? You didn't do it. You did not go back and read my posts. You have convinced yourself of a fantasy that does not exist. Or... You can't read plain english. Figure it out yourself. I'll let you live with your fantasy of what I said (that is actually totally diametrically OPPOSITE to my real meaning) ... I can't waste my time on someone that won't take the effort to see IF they are wrong when the are TOLD they are wrong. Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: gay marriage does not go far enough.
I don't think they understand this concept of less government regulation, interference and dictation = better outcomes... What the government needs to be concerned about is families, and not sex lives. Having family units means they don't need to micromanage individual lives, but can let family groups take care of their own. There is a large body of law having to do with inheritance of property and other valuables that pretty much turn the decisions over to the families. Likewise medical procedures, etcetera. People acquire family by heredity\lineage and by marriage\crossing. The second is just a convention to allow people to form a family unit that is not based on heredity\lineage but on mutual support\dependency. What we call it doesn't matter. Likewise the sexual behavior of the members doesn't matter. Two single mothers raising kids can combine forces in a mutual support family, and functionally - as far as the government is concerned - they should be covered the same as a married couple with kids under the laws. Five octogenarians should be able to form a family and be covered the same as an elderly couple that are married. It's not just gays that are being discriminated against. There is absolutely no secular reason for the laws to qualify the benefits etcetera of any law based on the sexual behavior of the people that want to form families. Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 156 of 206 (450046)
01-20-2008 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-16-2008 5:59 PM
|
|
it's family, not sex
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions. I don't mind if some discussion of the stance of various current candidates creeps in, but let's not make that the focus, okay kiddies? Don't we have a federal law that prevents discrimination based on sex, race, age and infirmity? Not just for work, or finding lodgings? It seems to me the issue is fairly straightforward. There are laws that provide benefits for members of families, whether they are members by birth or by marriage. Thus legally two brothers living together constitute a family that qualifies for those benefits. Likewise employment health coverage can be extended to members of your family, like an elderly parent, even if the children are elderly as well. The unit of concern to the government is the family, not what the family does. Two males living together are no different -- for government purposes -- than the two brothers cited above. Three elderly people living together are no different -- for government purposes -- than the elderly parent family cited above. If there is no government purpose served by discriminating between the examples above, and the law clearly states that families are defined by birth or by marriage, and marriage is allowed to some but not to others, then it is not in accordance with the laws on equality. Sex has nothing to do with it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subt
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-16-2008 5:59 PM | | subbie has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:00 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 163 of 206 (450105)
01-20-2008 3:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 3:00 PM
|
|
Re: it's family, not sex
I know I said "Not just for work, or finding lodgings?" As we do have labor laws Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
quote:
I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies. Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants.
Doesn't say what those "other federal laws" are. And then there are housing laws Page not found | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
quote:
Fair Housing Act Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). More on the Fair Housing Act Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from HUD's Community Development and Block Grant Program. Age Discrimination Act of 1975
The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.
So in the absence of any other laws, these - especially "familial status" in the Fair Housing Act - would seem to provide a precedent if nothing else. What about State laws? Thanks. Edited by RAZD, : clarified
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:00 PM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: it's family, not sex
Yeah, but I was asking about laws other than those.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 4:05 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: The law and the Family
Exactly, Rahvin. There are 1,138 federal statutes related to marriage benefits. If all 1,138 are included in a "civil union" (and they damn well better be), the only reason to give that contractual obligation between spouses a different name is discrimination. Unless when you give it a different name you also delete the old one, so that one term applies to all people. That may make it more politically expedient. Call it a family contract (after all that is what it is about eh?) for everyone, and get the heck out of the bedrooms. But lets also include groups that want to form families too. You can then let "marriage" be an optional ceremony run by the various religous and secular organizations according to their own rules (which will pretty well open it up to everyone and NJ's orange). Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 10:01 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 171 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 11:22 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 206 (450147)
01-20-2008 11:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 171 by Rahvin
01-20-2008 11:22 PM
|
|
Re: The law and the Family
But do you really think enough of Congress, the American people, or Federal judges will go for removing the word "marriage" from the law completely? I doubt it. A majority? yes, with a president that signs it into law. Everybody? no, certainly not the fanatics like Fred Phelps. It would probably have to supersede existing laws in a way that grandfathered all existing contracts\marriages\unions as existing forms of the contract. But it could be done. All it takes is political will. Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 11:22 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2