dontamend.com

[Sabastian]

This amendment was created solely because the courts stated that the states could not discriminate against gay men and women for engaging in sodomy. The conservative movement is scared that this has opened the door to allow same-sex marriages, and thus are trying to head it off at the pass and specifically define marriage as one man/one woman.

No matter which way you slice it, that is blatant discrimination. Changing the legal definition of marriage to fit societal bigotries is something this country has already done in the past, so it is no surprise. But now, thankfully, people are more open minded.

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is. So I don't think people really need that much education wrt this issue. I knew this would bring out the anti-gays but I posted it anyway because there are people here truly interested in equality for all our citizens. Those are the people this post is mainly directed towards, as I stated.

In Canada the left had the definition of the family redefined to that they could allow for homosexual marriage. Anyhow it wasn't only conservatives that opposed the gay ruling in Canada there was a massive protest even in the Liberal party, just like you are seeing in the Democratic party as well. Here is an interesting perspective on what is happening in Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=160D9A87-C5A4-425E-8ED9-38A08B7C6606

 

[Natoma]

In Canada the left had the definition of the family redefined to that they could allow for homosexual marriage. Anyhow it wasn't only conservatives that opposed the gay ruling in Canada there was a massive protest even in the Liberal party, just like you are seeing in the Democratic party as well. Here is an interesting perspective on what is happening in Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=160D9A87-C5A4-425E-8ED9-38A08B7C6606

The definition of family has not been changed at all. It is still those who live in the same household that share the same goals and values, and have long term committments with one another. It is also defined as those sharing a common ancestry. It is also defined as one or two parents who have children.

There was no need to redefine family as gay and lesbian couples already fit the bill. This fight is about getting the rights that are already defined for us, but are trying to be snatched away by changing definitions to the exclusion of certain groups of people, simply because of sexual orientation.

And need I remind you that right-wing conservatism, while dominating the republicans, does indeed exist in the democratic party as well. That much is not in dispute.

 

[Sabastian]

The definition of family has not been changed at all.

In Canada they had to reword the definition.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The conservative movement is scared that this has opened the door to allow same-sex marriages, and thus are trying to head it off at the pass and specifically define marriage as one man/one woman.

More accurately, the conservative movement is scared that the courts are overstepping their bounds. More accurately, the conservative movement believes this is a legislative issue, to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

No matter which way you slice it, that is blatant discrimination.

All laws are discriminitory.

I have zero problem with a state legislating same-sex unions to have the same rights as man-and-woman marriages.

Changing the legal definition of marriage to fit societal bigotries is something this country has already done in the past, so it is no surprise. But now, thankfully, people are more open minded.

Changing the legal definition? There is no legal definition right now, which is the point of this legislation.

Besides, most people when they look at this know what the true impetus behind it is.

Um, the "true" impetus is exactly how I said. It's to guarantee each individual state the legislative authority to bestow benefits associated with "marriage" as they see fit, and not force one particular point of view on everyone.

I knew this would bring out the anti-gays...

How many other anti-gays have no problem with a state legistlating same-sex unions to have the samne benefits as marriages?

 

[Natoma]

It is removing the definition of marriage from the hands of the government, and purposefully leaving open the question of civil unions. This removes the governmental intrusion into the institution of marriage. Rights will be conferred to civil unions (of which marriage is a subset). Marriage will not need to be co-opted to mean something it never has.

Or is that what you're really after?

Until the day that legal and social rights/protections are removed from the marital status (home purchasing rights, hospital visitation, taxes, adoption, estates, etc), then it is still affected by governmental "intrusion" as you say.

Civil Unions do not have all of the rights of marriage conferred upon them, nor are they recognized universally. If you get married in Europe, it is recognized here. If you get married here, it is recognized in Japan. Civil Unions do not enjoy that same universal status, and thus are not the same in nature.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Marriage will not need to be co-opted to mean something it never has.

Or is that what you're really after?

Civil Unions do not enjoy that same universal status, and thus are not the same in nature.

Translation: yes, Natoma wants marriage to mean something it never has.

 

[Natoma]

Sigh.

Joe, you can make the same argument for the repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws as well. Marriage and its construct was changed in order to keep interracial marriages from occurring. And again, it could be argued that the blanket supreme court repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws was indeed the courts overstepping their bounds, and it should have been left to the states on a state-by-state basis.

In fact, that argument was indeed made in the 50's and 60's when the supreme court struck down the anti-miscegenation laws. So as I said before, your arguments are nothing knew. Just pointed at a different group this time.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sigh.

Joe, you can make the same argument for the repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws as well.

Sigh.

And you can make your same argument for [edit]automatic[/edit] support incestual marriages, polygamy, marriages at under 18 years, etc.

 

[RussSchultz]

If you get married in Europe, it is recognized here. If you get married here, it is recognized in Japan.

Shouldn't that be a clue to you that marriage transcends the US government and constitution?

You don't get it, do you? Civil unions will the right bearing designator, and marriages will move out of the legal realm into a purely religious/societal one.

I will be married, which the government will recognize as meeting the requirements of a civil union. You will never be married according to most churches, mosques, temples, and/or village elders.

We (me and my partner, you and yours) will have the same legal rights under equal protection. And you'll have a lot less people trying to 'keep you down' if you don't try to intrude on their religious institutions with your lifestyle which to them is inherently wrong.

 

[Natoma]

Sigh.

Joe, you can make the same argument for the repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws as well.

Sigh.

And you can make your same argument to support incestual marriages, polygamy, marriages at under 18 years, etc.

And you can also state that the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman automatically supports incestual marriages and marriages under 18 as well.

I don't want to argue this minutae again because frankly it is pointless to do so Joe. You know as well as I do what this is about.

 

[Natoma]

If you get married in Europe, it is recognized here. If you get married here, it is recognized in Japan.

Shouldn't that be a clue to you that marriage transcends the US government and constitution?

You don't get it, do you? Civil unions will the right bearing designator, and marriages will move out of the legal realm into a purely religious/societal one.

I will be married, which the government will recognize as meeting the requirements of a civil union. You will never be married according to most churches, mosques, temples, and/or village elders.

We (me and my partner, you and yours) will have the same legal rights under equal protection. And you'll have a lot less people trying to 'keep you down' if you don't try to intrude on their religious institutions with your lifestyle which to them is inherently wrong.

There are quite a few European countries that designate homosexual marriages as legal, as does Canada now. In those places where it is designated as legal, homosexual marriages are indeed recognized. So that canadian marriage would indeed be recognized, for instance, in The Netherlands.

Now wrt to Marriage being a religious/social construct, if that is the case, then no rights should be conferred upon the married that do not exist for the unmarried correct? I want it one way or the other. Either Marriage is religious/social in nature and has no special rights conferred upon it by the government, or it is a governmentally sponsored contract with all its current rights. If it is the former, then I agree that Civil Unions are indeed representative of everyone, because then the legal construct affecting heterosexuals and homosexuals would then be under one term, Civil Union. If a religious gay couple wishes to have the title "Marriage" bestowed upon them then they can hope that their particular church does so. If it is the latter, then denying gay men and women Marriage rights is indeed unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause, not to mention the DOMA being unconstitutional due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Civil Unions in this case is another instance of "Separate but Equal," and as we all know, that does not compute.

 

[Natoma]

The definition of family has not been changed at all.

In Canada they had to reword the definition.

No they reworded the definition of marriage to be between two persons to the exclusion of all others, instead of one man and one woman, which was deemed unconstitutional.

The definition of family has not changed.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And you can also state that the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman automatically supports incestual marriages and marriages under 18 as well.

??

No, you can't. The definition is not all inclusive, just restrictive. It is restricted to only one man and one woman, but is not inclusive of all one man and one woman relationships.

That too, can be further defined by each individual state.

You are arguing that either

1) Legal definition of marriage should not be restricted at all, which would then (for example) open up incestual marriages to be legal

or

2) If it can be legally restricted in your opinion (to not included incest, for example) why then can't it also be restricted to one man and one woman?

I don't want to argue this minutae again because frankly it is pointless to do so Joe. You know as well as I do what this is about.

I know what you are trying to MAKE it about, sure.

 

[Natoma]

You're the one trying to make this a discussion on incest (which would still be illegal nonetheless due to the laws on the books wrt deformed offspring) and underage marriage (which would still be illegal due to child protection laws) and polygamy (which would still be illegal due to inheritance laws and tax exemption problems raised by that state of being) and whatever when this is obviously not even close to any of those constructs.

As I said, if you don't want to support the petition for equal civil rights for homosexuals as heterosexuals wrt this issue, then don't.

p.s.: One Man, One Woman, does not restrict Incest. It simply states that marriage is "One Man, One Woman." That phrase taken within the context of the proposed amendment, would most certainly include underage marriage and incestual relationships. There is no qualification made in the language of the amendment.

But you know as well I as do what they are referring to, so why you're trying to derail the topic of the conversation, i.e. stopping this amendment so it does not discriminate against healthy relationships, is beyond me.

 

[RussSchultz]

Why you'd want to shove your lifestyle down the throats of a majority of the population who don't appreciate it is beyond me.

By all means, fight for equal benefits under the law for gays couples.

Don't, however, attempt to force people to call you married by redefining what a marriage is. You will never succeed.

I, for one, will never agree that a marriage is between two same sex individuals, even though I feel that equal legal benefits for gay couples is the correct outcome.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You're the one trying to make this a discussion on incest

??

I'm using incest to make a point...to bring your logic to its ultimate conclusion.

(which would still be illegal nonetheless due to the laws on the books wrt deformed offspring)

Huh?

If incestual marriage is illegal... it shouldn't be under equal protection according to you. How does a prospect of deformed offspring override equal protection? Isn't equal protection the ultimate bottom line?

and underage marriage (which would still be illegal due to child protection laws) and polygamy (which would still be illegal due to inheritance laws and tax exemption problems raised by that state of being)

Again...Huh?

Where is it written that polygamy is illegal due you inheritance and tax laws? What planet are you on?

The point is, if polygamy is illegal...it shouldn't be according to your absolute view of "equal protection." Laws against polygamy should be found unconstitutional...at which point tax and inheritance laws would have to be re-written to accomodate polygamy..

 

[Natoma]

Why you'd want to shove your lifestyle down the throats of a majority of the population who don't appreciate it is beyond me.

By all means, fight for equal benefits under the law for gays couples.

Don't, however, attempt to force people to call you married by redefining what a marriage is. You will never succeed.

I, for one, will never agree that a marriage is between two same sex individuals, even though I feel that equal legal benefits for gay couples is the correct outcome.

Hey, a majority of the population at one time didn't like having the interracial "lifestyle" shoved down their throats either.

Marriage at one time was defined as a relationship between those of the same race, and people fought to have it changed and they succeeded. So you're wrong. It can and does succeed. We are doing the same to have our rights examined. If you're uncomfortable with that, then so be it.

There are some racists are uncomfortable seeing "jungle fever" and would never ever accept an interracial marriage in society or in their family. But that doesn't mean their opinions on the matter should be suffered any less than the opinions of those who wish to keep homosexuals from being able to enter into marriage with one another. I tolerate many things in life. But undeserved bigotry is not one of them.

Marriage is about committment, sharing your life with someone else, individual goals becoming one, recognized legally. Homosexuals want that because that is what we want for ourselves. It is what we live every day of our lives in our relationships with one another, just as heterosexuals do. I can tell you this much that if Civil Unions were granted the same legal status and rights as Marriage, many on the right would complain to high heaven about "Well, what makes marriage special then if they're the same??" I've heard the argument before and no doubt it will come up again. No matter what the situation, there will always be people who will be against it simply because they are against homosexuals achieving the same rights, status, and priviliges as heterosexuals.

You honestly cannot know how psychologically damaging it is on a day in and day out basis, to have to fight against that, just to be recognized as a full citizen of this country, and on some levels as a human being. But we do it anyways because we know it's the right thing to do, despite bigoted feelings to the contrary.

 

[Natoma]

Again Joe, I'm not getting into this discussion with you. This is not about incest. This is not about underage marriage. This is not about polygamy. You can make "One Man, One Woman" a slippery slope to include underage marriage and incest as well, but I'm not so obstinate that I'm going to try to keep drilling that in to make some ethereal point.

And I certainly would not try to equate your heterosexual relationship to another heterosexual relationship that just happens to be between a minor and an adult, or a heterosexual relationship between a mother and a son or a father and a daughter. I do have that much respect for your relationship.

I only ask that you show that same respect for my relationship.

 

[RussSchultz]

I will guarantee the church I was raised in will never ever accept your lifestyle, or that you and your partner are married in the eyes of God.

Period, end of story.

You can rail against it, call it wrong, pigheaded, etc. But it won't change the fact that they won't accept your status as married. It is fundamentally against what is written in the Bible.

Your equation to interracial marriages doesn't compare because there is no fundamental equation with intermingling of the races and what is prohibited in the bible.

But, ya know what? I wouldn't care if a group of people DID demand that marriages were only between two white bread crackers. The government has no business redefining religious beliefs to further social engineering. I ESPECIALLY don't like the supreme court redefining religious activity by fiat.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Again Joe, I'm not getting into this discussion with you.

Seems you already have.

This is not about incest. This is not about underage marriage. This is not about polygamy.

Based on your logic, indeed it is. That's the point.

You can make "One Man, One Woman" a slippery slope to include underage marriage and incest as well, but I'm not so obstinate that I'm going to try to keep drilling that in to make some ethereal point.

Correct, it does not "automatically exclude" such relationships.

That doesn't mean that state legistlatures can't decide that such relationships are not legal unions. Understand the point now?

Based on YOUR logic (your specific notion of "equal protection"), state legislatures would have no choice but to accept polygamy, underage, and incest unions as "marriage", including all the rights therein.

And I certainly would not try to equate your heterosexual relationship to another heterosexual relationship that just happens to be between a minor and an adult, or a heterosexual relationship between a mother and a son or a father and a daughter.

That's exactly my point. You DON'T equate my marital relationship with those other relationships. Yet, based on "equal protection", you should.

I do have that much respect for your relationship.

I only ask that you show that same respect for my relationship.

Sorry. Can't do it. I don't have the same respect for your relationship. I respect your right to enter in to such a relationship...but I don't respect the relationship itself the same as I do heterosexual relationships.

I only ask that you have the same respect for pedophilia, incestual, and polygamous relationships, if you want to have a consistent view with respect to "equal protection".