Mass Supreme Court: "civil unions" not good enough

[Vyce 0]

so after this court ruling, how long until W comes riding into town, guns blazing, ready to ratify the constitution all to hell to please his right to life and christian coalition buddies? Considering he did already threaten it in the State of the Union.

People like you keep saying this.

 

And I have to remind you every time - you DO realize that a MAJORITY of the people in this country do not support gay marriage, don't you?

 

The Washington Post even admitts this in an article today on the MA ruling.

 

Doesn't make those who oppose it right, but I would think it's a fair assumption to say that, say, 51% of 300 million Americans aren't religious extremists or Christian Coalition members.

 

You're offbase. More than just a small group of people oppose this. Bush could stand up today and say, "You know, I don't like gay marriages", and he would legitimately be speaking for a MAJORITY of Americans. Don't obfuscate that fact by trying to pin this on a minority of constituents as if they're the ones to blame for anti-gay-marriage sentiment.

[Guest Smues]

Ok maybe I'm just stupid, but can somebody explain to me why everyone is against gay marriages? I'm not seeing the issue here.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Unfortunately Smues, there is a large portion of this country that is either not comfortable with gay people, hate them or fall somewhere in between and do not want gay's to be married. Then there are the people who hold the bible up and hide behind it and say the sanctity of marriage is jeopardized by allowing gay people equal rights.

 

All that is complete and utter bullshit, but it is the mindset. I've of course yet to hear a valid reason to disallow it, which is why I'm all for allowing equal rights to all people in this country.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Marriage = man/woman.

 

Crap, now where's my Bible to hold up and thump?...

[EricMM 0]

ok kkk...

 

Marriage = man/woman

Marriage = Religion

Marriage != Govt

 

so therefore

 

Shouldn't the US govt remove all laws that relate to marriage in any way?

[C Dubya 04 0]

Marriage = man/woman.

 

Crap, now where's my Bible to hold up and thump?...

I can't accept that as a reason. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but that does not change my mind.

 

I think that civil unions would be an appropriate compromise. The term "marriage" can apply to straight couples if they want, and gay couples can have civil unions with equal protection of the law.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Shouldn't the US govt remove all laws that relate to marriage in any way?

 

Sure, why the hell not.

 

And what's up with this "In God we trust" on money?

 

Damnit, next thing you know Pat Robertson will have a camera in every bedroom just so we're not doing anything inappropriate with our anuses...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I can't accept that as a reason.

 

And I don’t give a shit if you do or not.

 

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but that does not change my mind.

 

I wasn’t trying to change your mind. I don't care what your opinion on this issue is.

 

I think that civil unions would be an appropriate compromise.  The term "marriage" can apply to straight couples if they want, and gay couples can have civil unions with equal protection of the law.

 

Works for me...

[EricMM 0]

kkk I don't CARE about the money.

 

Whats on the money is not the issue here.

 

AS BPP said (although not first), all men are created equally.

 

So all men and women should have equal rights to a legal union with the one person (over the age of 18) they love. I am not talking about a Christian religious ritual. I am talking about a law.

 

I agree that a couple should be able to leave their stuff to whichever of them survives the first to die. I really think the family is a strong part of this society, and every other one. We've had families since before we were even biologically human. It's a survival trait. But I think that people should be able to start a family with whomever they want, even if it will only be a family of two.

 

*EDIT* AND if I may add, if kkk sees no reason why homosexuals are not allowed to achieve a civil union, does anyone else? Does anyone know why anyone would be reasonably against it? Say... Bush? *EDIT*

[C Dubya 04 0]

In God we trust being on money causes no harm to anyone. Being denied the same rights as other Americans does.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Jesus, I just brought up the "In God we trust" because Eric used Religion/Separation of Church and State with:

 

Marriage = man/woman

Marriage = Religion

Marriage != Govt

 

Like I have said before, Marriage is a Man/Woman. Case closed. Should homosexuals be allowed civil unions? Why the hell not? Let them go though the headaches of divorce like straight couples...

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok maybe I'm just stupid, but can somebody explain to me why everyone is against gay marriages? I'm not seeing the issue here.

Personally, I don't care about gay marriage per se.

 

My beef is with the court overstepping its bounds. This is an issue where they are doing so, but the issue itself is of virtually no real interest to me.

 

The MA Court has invented a right to marriage and, in so doing, is forcing EVERY STATE in the union to follow suit (since a marriage in MA must be accepted in all of the 50 states).

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

What do you think the result of a gay couple getting married in MA and subsequently moving to another state? Could that state not honor their union?

[Guest MikeSC]

What do you think the result of a gay couple getting married in MA and subsequently moving to another state? Could that state not honor their union?

Nope. They are legally required by the Constitution to honor it.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Mike, if I'm not mistaken the Defense of Marriage Act allows those states which do not wish to recognize the laws of another state regarding gay marriage to do so. Thus, those states which have ratified the DMA (and there's over 30 of them I believe) would NOT recognize a gay marriage from MA. The DMA basically circumvents the full faith & credit clause of the Constitution.

 

But I see an amusing theme reaccuring again here. As soon as is this issue is brought up, certain people (on the left) here immediately start the OMG CHRISTIAN OPPRESSORS!!!!!111 rhetoric.

 

Like I said - at least 51% of Americans (a majority) don't like gay marriage. That's of 300 million Americans. Are they all religious extremists? Do all of them base their anti-marriage stance on religious beliefs? It's foolish to assume so. A minority do, but just because they're vocal do not assume that means they speak for everyone.

 

The more accurate reason is that most people are TRADITIONAL, with traditional values that stress that marriage equals man + woman.

 

Oh, and one more thing: you're the liberals - you're supposed to be the OPEN-minded ones. Don't automatically assume that those who oppose gay-marriage have some sort of direct hatred of gays. Their opposition to gay marriage may be indirect discrimination on their part, but I think it's probably accurate to say that MOST people who oppose gay marriage don't hate or dislike gay people. Hell, many - if not most - would probably support civil unions. It's just the concept of marriage that has TRADITIONAL as well as religious connotations.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I would say the question isn't whether or not the majority of Americans support gay marriage (it's likely no, and I doubt it will ever get any higher than 50/50). It's whether they are so against it they would actually support a constitutional ammendment against it, which is basically the most extreme response possible. I've talked with several conservatives who, although they don't support gay marriage, feel that ammending the constitution over a social policy issue flies directly in the face of what true conservatism is supposed to stand for.

[Vern Gagne 0]

In the local paper today a poll shows 63% oppose gay marriage, and 27% support gay marriage. It was like 50/50 in terms of civil unions. Remember this is in Minnesota. Not exactly some religious right haven.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, if I'm not mistaken the Defense of Marriage Act allows those states which do not wish to recognize the laws of another state regarding gay marriage to do so.  Thus, those states which have ratified the DMA (and there's over 30 of them I believe) would NOT recognize a gay marriage from MA.  The DMA basically circumvents the full faith & credit clause of the Constitution.

Thing is, I have little reason to expect that it'll survive court challenges. If the Supreme Court will find a blatantly unconstitutional law like campaign finance constitutional, I have little hope that they will allow any common sense laws to work, either. I avoid faith in the court systems.

Like I said - at least 51% of Americans (a majority) don't like gay marriage.  That's of 300 million Americans.  Are they all religious extremists?  Do all of them base their anti-marriage stance on religious beliefs?  It's foolish to assume so.  A minority do, but just because they're vocal do not assume that means they speak for everyone.

It's, according to most polls, over 60%. In the Senate, it'd be filibuster-proof.

Oh, and one more thing:  you're the liberals - you're supposed to be the OPEN-minded ones.  Don't automatically assume that those who oppose gay-marriage have some sort of direct hatred of gays.  Their opposition to gay marriage may be indirect discrimination on their part, but I think it's probably accurate to say that MOST people who oppose gay marriage don't hate or dislike gay people.  Hell, many - if not most - would probably support civil unions.  It's just the concept of marriage that has TRADITIONAL as well as religious connotations.

I oppose this, not because of the issue of marriage, but because of judicial activism running rampant over legislative authority.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I would say the question isn't whether or not the majority of Americans support gay marriage (it's likely no, and I doubt it will ever get any higher than 50/50). It's whether they are so against it they would actually support a constitutional ammendment against it, which is basically the most extreme response possible. I've talked with several conservatives who, although they don't support gay marriage, feel that ammending the constitution over a social policy issue flies directly in the face of what true conservatism is supposed to stand for.

They won't.

 

A gay marriage amendment will never happen. NEVER. Because it would have to be approved by both houses of Congress and be ratified by 2/3rds of the states (roughly 34). Do you honestly think that a gay marriage ban amendment would survive through all of that? It doesn't have a chance in hell.

 

Which is why Bush can support it - because he knows that it'll never become reality. Meanwhile, he takes a position on an issue which a great many people agree with.

 

It's not just Bush, I should remind all of my liberal friends here - John Kerry, the unofficial Democratic nominee, has been running like a motherfucker to the center on the issue to distance himself from his own home state's position on the matter. I think he even went so far as to come flat out and say yesterday that he doesn't support gay marriage.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Kerry has said that he's against gay marriage.

[Guest JMA]

Kerry has said that he's against gay marriage.

Although he does support civil unions. It's a solid strategy by Kerry to play to the center.

 

He also mentioned Cheney had the same beliefs as him concerning civil unions. I don't know if that's true or not, though.

[NoCalMike 0]

Bush is also against civil unions I believe. Civil Unions are a good compromise and I am sure 99% of gays would be quite happy if they were nationally legalized across the board. And yes I am aware that gay marriage is not accepted by the majority, but all I was trying to point out was that it would show another example of a conservative breaking his own parties mold with the contradiction to the famous "Get the government out of our lives" motto. Not to mention the fact that I still keep hearing "protect the sanctity of marriage" over and over. Hey, I didn't know marriage had called up W. and told him she was afraid that her sanctity might be destroyed by all the gay people, all the while divorce, celebs, & britney are doing just fine to driver her name through the mud all by themselves.

[Vyce 0]

He also mentioned Cheney had the same beliefs as him concerning civil unions. I don't know if that's true or not, though.

It seems likely that he would, seeing as one of his children is gay.

 

And yes I am aware that gay marriage is not accepted by the majority, but all I was trying to point out was that it would show another example of a conservative breaking his own parties mold with the contradiction to the famous "Get the government out of our lives" motto

 

Sort of how Kerry is breaking his own party mold by disengenuously asserting he's against gay marriage?

 

No, I think you were more trying to pin this on the Christians, but that theory's kind of shot to hell.

[Perfxion 0]

You can't blame Christians for this gay marriage ban. It IS most Americans. Most Americans that say they are Liberal still fall Conserv on the issue of gay marriage. Most liberal thought is civil union. President stated in a interview, he wants civil unions. The Courts, as of now, will shoot down any laws against gay marriages being banned. This is why they want an amendment to go through(which has as much of a shot passing as the ERA).

 

That is why the goverment should get out of the word marriage. Call every marriage a civil Union. Allow gays to get "married". Pass a law stated that mairrage is a private thing between people and either the church or Los Vegas. Everyone is happy since tax and death laws will be protected or rather under these civil Unions.

 

If they are really want to play politics, attach this civil union idea into a proposed amendment like the ERA. Thus passing equal rights will also defind marriage as man and woman, since it will be a private idea.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Actually the amendment might pass pretty easily. 38 states at the moment are anti-gay marriage.

[Perfxion 0]

It isn't the state vote, it is the congress vote. Party Politics alone will kill any amendment. See: Victims rights amendment, Equal Rights Amendment, Gay Rights amendment, ect. Lately, nothing with the word amendment too it will not get out of congress because it is congress.

[Guest MikeSC]

It isn't the state vote, it is the congress vote. Party Politics alone will kill any amendment. See: Victims rights amendment, Equal Rights Amendment, Gay Rights amendment, ect. Lately, nothing with the word amendment too it will not get out of congress because it is congress.

Um, ERA made it to the states.

 

It even had an extension.

 

It could never pass.

 

It was redundant.

-=Mike

[Guest Olympic Slam]

This may seem like a religious issue, but its mostly a wording and cultural issue. Ideally we would lall ove it if the government would get its nose out of the business of marriage, unfortunately there are many perks and benefits that involve marriage and we need clear cultural standards and legal clarification.

 

I can honestly say (as an unmarried 20-something year old who has never been in love) that gay marriage doesn't seem like a big deal. Our world will not shatter if two dudes get married in OMG a church. The problem is that we live in a nation, and as a nation we need to agree upon SOME stritct cultural standards. We need to legally and culturally define marriage for America. Without a culture that has a sense of right and wrong, good or bad, then our nation crumbles because without culture, there is no nation. I tried to explain this in the Conservative Stirs up Trouble thread a few weeks ago but I guess it went over everyone's head.

 

Gay marriage is complex because it opens the door to any and all alternatives to man/woman unions. Once again, this is a case of culture being blurred by the social engineers and fairness police. If two women can marry each other, then why not a man and two women? Four women? Some people say they're married to their job, can a person say he/she wants to become legally one with his occupation? What about a person and an object? Or a man and his horse? Before you say "oh Olympic Slam you're crazy," then think abut how crazy man/man marriage would have sounded to the founding fathers back in 1700's. Let's deal with reality here, times have changed, and we need to clearly define what legal marriage is in America.

 

Two things need to occur:

- To protect historical/cultural integrity of the American marriage, we need to clearly define American marriage as between a man and a woman. As a nation, we need to keep some things sacred. I wish social engineers would realize that ideas are sometimes just as important as people. Yet, they continue to trample over tradition in the grand pursuit of fairness (see letting girls into the Boy Scouts). In the end, they destroy the purpose and intention of something that was very special to many people in the name of "fairness" for a fringe minority group. It's like altering baseball's rules to allow handicapped people to play. If you tinker with the rules of baseball enough in the name of "fairness" so that you're playing almost an entirely different game; are you then still playing baseball?

- This is the important one: We need legal clarifications for legal unions between two people. In the eyes of the government/business/health plans ect, this is the one that should count most. Two people (man or woman) = marriage. Marriage = man/woman. Unions = two people. Government should recognize both types of unions equally.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Marriage = the union between 2 legally consenting adults. Throw in some wording to prohibit incestuous relationships.

 

Seems pretty easy to me.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Actually the amendment might pass pretty easily. 38 states at the moment are anti-gay marriage.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily support an ammendment to the Federal constitution. These states probably view it as a states rights issue, and a constituional ammendment would strip some of those rights away.