dontamend.com

[RussSchultz]

States have the right to regulate whatever however they want.


But the real point being, you're bitching that marriages are given full faith and credit, but civil unions aren't.

Well, why don't you fight for civil unions being universally recognized?

Trust me on this. You'll get a lot less flack and a whole lot more acceptance if you tell the truth about what you want, and don't try to force your changes on peoples religious beliefs.

 

[Vince]

Vince is in this thread? Sorry, not taking part in the discussion, just curious about this.

I permeate all, it's a personality trait... what can I say?

 

[Natoma]

Russ:

As I said before, this has been done. And what argument has been used by social conservatives when Civil Unions were being created in law? "If there is no difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage in the law, then what is the difference between them? This is a cloak and dagger attempt by the homosexual agenda to co-opt the sanctity of marriage."

It has been done. You get Civil Unions to equal status in front of the law as Marriage, and it becomes the same thing because the religious implications of Marriage, like it or not, permeates the legal/social implications of Marriage as well. If Civil Unions are guaranteed the legal/social status of Marriage, the religious right will scream bloody murder at the encroachment, as they have already done.

See DOMA.

It is an uphill battle no matter which way it is fought. Either for equal protection in Civil Unions, or equal protection with the bestowing of the term Marriage upon said unions. Either way, as I have stated, the religious implications for Marriage permeate the legal/societal construct, despite our legal structure of separation of church and state.

 

[epicstruggle]

Natoma, why do you care what society thinks of you and your partner? Let me tell you something. Im a hindu. Im married. My marriage is not recognized outside of india. Is that fair? Do i cry about it. NO, I live my life as best as I can. I do plan on gettin married to her when she comes back to the states (mostly for imigration reasons).

Look I understand that you want the same rights/benefits/protections that others get in a marriage. Why not try to get other states to recognize civil unions. you wont ruffle as many feathers and you might just end up with exactly what you want.

later,

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, why do you care what society thinks of you and your partner? Let me tell you something. Im a hindu. Im married. My marriage is not recognized outside of india. Is that fair? Do i cry about it. NO, I live my life as best as I can. I do plan on gettin married to her when she comes back to the states (mostly for imigration reasons).

Look I understand that you want the same rights/benefits/protections that others get in a marriage. Why not try to get other states to recognize civil unions. you wont ruffle as many feathers and you might just end up with exactly what you want.

later,

If you were denied the right to get married simply because you are hindu and this is predominantly a christian country, you would not see the need to ask the question "Why" epicstruggle.

The question wrt civil unions is the same one that I just answered to russ. It is not recognized throughout this country. It is never a question of someone's marriage on Tennessee being recognized in New York or Massachusetts or Minnesota or wherever. Having to fight on a state by state basis should not be something, in a completely legally equal situation between Civil Unions and Marriage, that we need to fight for.

If Civil Unions are indeed to have the same legal status as Marriage, then fighting for the recognition for each state becomes an anachronism in and of itself. You do not have to fight to have your marriage recognized if you move to a different state in this country. The differences between Marriage and Civil Unions, at this point in time, are profound. That is why we fight for the right to marry. Civil Unions are the poor bastard step child of Marriage, plain and simple. They're better than nothing, but at this point, not by much.

 

[epicstruggle]

If you were denied the right to get married simply because you are hindu and this is predominantly a christian country, you would not see the need to ask the question "Why" epicstruggle.

I was born in South Africa. My parents were born in South Africa. My grandparents came from India. All of us had some sort of id card stating that we were not whites and where we lived. (only blacks, coloreds, indians were required to have them!!!!!!).(I did not live in SA very long.) Only christian marriages were recognized. So my parents had to say that they believed in something they did not believe in to get married. We had approved areas where we could live. We had segregated beaches among other things. SO dont tell me you have it hard. Unless your a 60+year old black person. You dont know nothing about how hard life is or could be.

later,

 

[Natoma]

If you were denied the right to get married simply because you are hindu and this is predominantly a christian country, you would not see the need to ask the question "Why" epicstruggle.

I was born in South Africa. My parents were born in South Africa. My grandparents came from India. All of us had some sort of id card stating that we were not whites and where we lived. (only blacks, coloreds, indians were required to have them!!!!!!).(I did not live in SA very long.) Only christian marriages were recognized. So my parents had to say that they believed in something they did not believe in to get married. We had approved areas where we could live. We had segregated beaches among other things. SO dont tell me you have it hard. Unless your a 60+year old black person. You dont know nothing about how hard life is or could be.

later,

I live life with my partner having to hide our relationship for fear we could lose our apartment. I live life not being able to walk down the street holding his hand for fear we could be beaten up. I live life having to deal with people that compare my relationship to beastiality and fishing licenses. We cannot get married under *any* circumstance. We cannot lie about being christians to get married. Believe me we would if it were that simple. At least your parents had that loophole.

My partner and I have been tailed for miles by state troopers because we were driving a luxury sedan, 1MPH slower than the speed limit. The Troopers were waiting for us to go over the speed limit and kept driving up next to us, peering inside, simply because we are both black, and the car we were driving was too nice. This was on our way up to our vacation spot in Ogunquit, Maine.

I have been harassed by police officers countless times in NYC. I cannot get a cab at night unless it is driven by a minority, simply because of my skin color.

I know *exactly* how hard life is or could be, because of my sexuality *and* my skin color. But this is neither here nor there. Being able to see injustices when they appear should not be dependent on how hard or how not so hard one's life has been. I see no reason why comparing relative injustices in one's life, the discrimination experienced, is relevant at all to this discussion. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what form it takes.

Your experiences give all the more reason to wonder why you would even need to ask why I fight for equal recognition for my partner and me wrt our relationship.

 

[epicstruggle]

listen after 9/11 many indians were mistaken for muslims. We got death threats and were targets of violence. There are many people who live in fear, ask those who have been raped or have had violence done to them. No offence but I think showing affection in public is kinda rude (where by gays or straight people). Wow youve been tailed by police. i guess now you have that in common with every black person who has also had that happen to them. (im not sure what skin color you have, from your comment above i think you might be black) However most of what happens to blacks also happen to dark skin colored indians and muslims.

Back on topic. I will never support marriage for gays or lesbians. I will however support civil unions which would be identical to a marriage but for a different name. I think there are many like me who dont really care what you do in your bedroom but do care about what the word marriage means.

Why not fight for civil unions instead youll have more support. Which might make your life easier sooner. Fighting to get marriage to include gays and lesbians will only get this ammendment passed. Many democrats and republicans who support this, think that it will pass faster than the 18 year old voting right act. Which passed in months.

later,

 

[Natoma]

listen after 9/11 many indians were mistaken for muslims. We got death threats and were targets of violence. There are many people who live in fear, ask those who have been raped or have had violence done to them. No offence but I think showing affection in public is kinda rude (where by gays or straight people). Wow youve been tailed by police. i guess now you have that in common with every black person who has also had that happen to them. (im not sure what skin color you have, from your comment above i think you might be black) However most of what happens to blacks also happen to dark skin colored indians and muslims.

I did state that eddie and I are black epic. But again, I don't see why comparing relative discriminations in one's life is relevant to the discussion.

Back on topic. I will never support marriage for gays or lesbians. I will however support civil unions which would be identical to a marriage but for a different name. I think there are many like me who dont really care what you do in your bedroom but do care about what the word marriage means.

Why not fight for civil unions instead youll have more support. Which might make your life easier sooner. Fighting to get marriage to include gays and lesbians will only get this ammendment passed. Many democrats and republicans who support this, think that it will pass faster than the 18 year old voting right act. Which passed in months.

later,

Here is a portion of a post I made earlier on this thread that addresses what you've stated. I've added some extra bolding and italics to stress certain points.

Civil Unions != Marriage in any way shape or form. Civil Unions, in their current construct, even in Vermont, are a "Separate but equal" creation that is obfuscatory by it's very existence. Civil Unions are not recognized across the country. Civil Unions do not confer the benefits (what few there are) across the country.

Eddie and I are in a domestic partnership with one another in NYC. However, any other place and our domestic partnership is not recognized. This is obviously a situation of "Separate but equal" whereby equal rights are supposed in nature, and nonexistant in implementation. We want the full rights accorded to marriage and the full recognition of those rights and that relational status.

The word itself, marriage, is merely a syntactical argument of definition. A mass masturbatory exercise is fear, uncertainty, and doubt by social conservatives that recognizing "gay marriage" will somehow lead to the destruction of society as we know it. Keep your word "Marriage". Fine. But we still want the respect, rights, and dignity conferred by that word.

So in essence, if Civil Unions are indeed given *all* rights and priviliges enjoyed by Marriages, then I will be completely satisfied.

However epic, I do not see an equal transferral of rights and priviliges happening wrt Civil Unions and Marriage. I explained my reasoning for this earlier on this page to russ.

As I said before, this has been done. And what argument has been used by social conservatives when Civil Unions were being created in law? "If there is no difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage in the law, then what is the difference between them? This is a cloak and dagger attempt by the homosexual agenda to co-opt the sanctity of marriage."

It has been done. You get Civil Unions to equal status in front of the law as Marriage, and it becomes the same thing because the religious implications of Marriage, like it or not, permeates the legal/social implications of Marriage as well. If Civil Unions are guaranteed the legal/social status of Marriage, the religious right will scream bloody murder at the encroachment, as they have already done.

See DOMA.

It is an uphill battle no matter which way it is fought. Either for equal protection in Civil Unions, or equal protection with the bestowing of the term Marriage upon said unions. Either way, as I have stated, the religious implications for Marriage permeate the legal/societal construct, despite our legal structure of separation of church and state.

 

[Natoma]

Anyways I'm off to sleep. So responses from me on anything new will be a while from now.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I'm curious about something - are marriages from any state recognized in any other state due to a federal law or statute, or is the case that each state has adopted a statute that recognizes marriages made in other states?

I think that's an important issue.

Here is my take on what gays should be persuing:

(1) Fight for the status of civil unions to have the same legal benefits as marriages in the state in which they are made.
(2) Stop trying to force the term "marriage" to be applied to gay civil unions.
(3a) If state to state recognition is declared on a federal level for marriages, then fight for the same recognition for civil unions.
(4a) If state to state recognition is declared on an individual basis by each state for marriages, then fight in each state to have them recognize civil unions from other states.

This seems like a pretty clear "path to success" to me. It doesn't seem that this is the goal of the petition, or the gay community in general. It seems that their primary goal is the use of the label "married."

 

[epicstruggle]

I did state that eddie and I are black epic. But again, I don't see why comparing relative discriminations in one's life is relevant to the discussion.

Reading most of your post on this subject I get the feeling that you feel that no one know what being gay is. Many people are discriminated against. No offense but you cant make laws that will change peoples mindset.

The word itself, marriage, is merely a syntactical argument of definition. A mass masturbatory exercise is fear, uncertainty, and doubt by social conservatives that recognizing "gay marriage" will somehow lead to the destruction of society as we know it. Keep your word "Marriage". Fine. But we still want the respect, rights, and dignity conferred by that word.

[/quote]
I wonder what kinda law youll have to pass to get people to give you "respect, rights, and dignity". Laws will give you rights, but how the hell are you going to make someone respect and dignify your union when you want to shove it down their mouth.

later,

 

[Natoma]

I did state that eddie and I are black epic. But again, I don't see why comparing relative discriminations in one's life is relevant to the discussion.

Reading most of your post on this subject I get the feeling that you feel that no one know what being gay is. Many people are discriminated against. No offense but you cant make laws that will change peoples mindset.

Grr I said I was going to bed. Anyways...

Has anyone told you you cannot get married epicstruggle? I'm talking about you personally. Not your parents. Not your grandparents. Can anyone else on this thread posting in a disparaging manner say the same thing? Then no. You, nor they, know what it's like to live in this society in which our ability to enter into equally recognized legal relationships with one another is denied.

Discrimination exists everywhere in different forms and different manners. But that does not mean that the fight to end that discrimination is all of a sudden void or moot simply because one group decides it's going to end it for themselves and another group does not, or has experienced some form of discrimination as well. Just because black people have experienced discrimination doesn't give us the right to tell asians that they have no right to bitch and moan about discrimination, or indians that they have no right to bitch and moan about discrimination, simply because we know what it's like as well. That is spurious reasoning.

The word itself, marriage, is merely a syntactical argument of definition. A mass masturbatory exercise is fear, uncertainty, and doubt by social conservatives that recognizing "gay marriage" will somehow lead to the destruction of society as we know it. Keep your word "Marriage". Fine. But we still want the respect, rights, and dignity conferred by that word.

I wonder what kinda law youll have to pass to get people to give you "respect, rights, and dignity". Laws will give you rights, but how the hell are you going to make someone respect and dignify your union when you want to shove it down their mouth.

later,

I said specifically that if people want to get pissy over a word then so be it. Keep the word. We want everything else associated with the word. You can keep marriage. We'll call it civil unions. As long as civil union does indeed equal marriage in the eyes of the government (which it currently most certainly does not), then I would be just fine with that.

 

[Natoma]

I'm curious about something - are marriages from any state recognized in any other state due to a federal law or statute, or is the case that each state has adopted a statute that recognizes marriages made in other states?

I don't know. However, I would assume marriage is a federally regulated institution because all states have the same age limit to enter into marriage, i.e. 18 or older, much in the same way voting is regulated on a national level. Other than that reasoning, I don't know either way.

 

[epicstruggle]

I'm curious about something - are marriages from any state recognized in any other state due to a federal law or statute, or is the case that each state has adopted a statute that recognizes marriages made in other states?

I don't know. However, I would assume marriage is a federally regulated institution because all states have the same age limit to enter into marriage, i.e. 18 or older, much in the same way voting is regulated on a national level. Other than that reasoning, I don't know either way.

Wrong. Actually (if im not mistaken) states work on a good faith basis. If a marriage is recognized in one state, then they will also recognize it. The federal govermnent has minimal regulations in marriages.
Also some states allow minors to get married at the age of 15 or 16 with the parents consent. Rember Elvis he married Priscilla at the age of 14 or 15 all legal.

later,

 

[epicstruggle]

back to the original topic. Ill support amending the bill of right to have marriage defined as only between a man and a women. However Ill support laws that allow same sex civil unions to have the same rights/benefits/protections as marriages. Also civil unions should also be allowed for polygamists. If needed inheritance laws should also be changed to make that easier.

later,

 

[RussSchultz]

And you're saying that these petitions aren't lying? Or that its an unimportant lie considering the greatness of the percieved goal?

So, no answer?

I figured with all of your hubbub about Bush and the uranium claim, you'd be all over this.

 

[Vince]

I figured with all of your hubbub about Bush and the uranium claim, you'd be all over this.

Natoma doesn't address his inconsistencies and argument-based pitfalls -- he just attacks somewhere else.

 

[Natoma]

Russ:

I already answered this:

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. In one state and one state only are those rights recognized at the moment. Eddie and I are not citizens of Vermont. If we get a civil union in Vermont, those rights do not extend to New York, our home state.

Thus, in its current construct, Civil Union != Marriage. If you get married in Vermont, your marriage is recognized nationwide. If eddie and I get a civil union in Vermont, our union is not recognized nationwide.

Separate but equal indeed.

Why is the petition not lying? Because Civil Unions != Marriage. This was addressed on page 3 and earlier this page. But to flesh this out further, the petition states the following:

They fear the majority of Americans may not share their intolerance, and now want a constitutional amendment using the scare tactic of 'same sex marriage' to deny civil rights and equal benefits to millions of people.

If Civil Unions did indeed provide all of the rights and priviliges of marriage, then that would be disingenuous and I would agree. But as I've shown before, Civil Unions != Marriage by any stretch of the imagination. So this is completely accurate. If you deny marriage to millions of americans simply because of their sexual orientation, you are denying them civil rights, benefits, protections, and legal status that are accorded to like heterosexual relationships, in our current system of relational recognition.

And as I've stated earlier, if Civil Unions are given all the rights, benefits, protections, and legal status that marriage enjoys now in front of the government, then I would be happy. But I realistically don't see that happening. The anti-gays in this country would find something wrong with that and try to argue that Civil Unions should not be given the same protections, rights, etc that Marriage enjoys, because then what would separate a Marriage from a Civil Union? This was argued in the mid-90's when Vermont and Hawaii had settled on Civil Unions, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was created.

Natoma doesn't address his inconsistencies and argument-based pitfalls -- he just attacks somewhere else.

Yea this coming from a guy that compared my relationship with eddie to beastiality. And you honestly expect me to take you seriously. But then again Russ compared my saying that Civil Unions are not recognized nationally to him not being able to take his fishing license from one state to another. The absurdity with some of you people never ceases to amaze.

 

[Natoma]

back to the original topic. Ill support amending the bill of right to have marriage defined as only between a man and a women. However Ill support laws that allow same sex civil unions to have the same rights/benefits/protections as marriages. Also civil unions should also be allowed for polygamists. If needed inheritance laws should also be changed to make that easier.

later,

Ok first things first, this wasn't about the bill of rights. It's the constitution. Second, what if this was back during your parents days when they were prevented from being married as hindus in South Africa? Or what if politicians came out in the USA and tried to say that marriage should only be between one christian man and one christian woman, and have that explicitly stated in the constitution? That would prevent you from marrying your wife when she comes to the states now wouldn't it, since apparently your marriage in India isn't recognized here.

There was a time when if you loved a light skinned woman you would not be able to marry her being a dark skinned man, because that was deemed illegal, not a marriage, and against god's natural order.

I mean, do you not see the irony here?