Biden: I'm 'absolutely comfortable' with gay marriage

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by LisaA

Yep and even in nutty Oregon (Publisher take note your home state). BTW everyone claimed the vote in NC would be close. It was a BLOWOUT despite their Governor (a Democrat) who was chastising the people of her state for even considering such a measure.

The Democrat Convention should be interesting! Right now all kinds of homosexual groups are planning boycotts and demonstrations.

All we need to is Crosby Stills and Nash singing a new rendition of "Chicago" with Charlotte substituted for the city. I

BTW I remember the 68 Convention....may their tribe increase
Lisa

Yes....and it is being challenged or in the process of being challenged here in Oregon....eventualy both California and Oregon will follow suit with Washington State.

Marriage equality is one of the platforms one of Portland mayoral canidates is running on....Portland already has had a gay mayor....civil unions are granted in Multmomah County....all "marriage rights" pertaining to medical issues and insurance coverage is granted to the partners of state employees if they chose to register a civil union.....soon we will follow Washington State's lead....as will California.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Publisher

It becomes a civil right when the state determines it's a civil right. And it has been determined to be by the state.

But I thought civil rights are "inalienable".

If the state can give them out, then the state can give them away.

[Havard]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

The State interest? Ah, yes, the interests of the State are paramount!


Where do you live that most marriages are traditional and procreative? I may be wrong here, so I'll stand corrected if so, but I read something that said that there's a trend to cohabiting relationships outside of marriage in this country. Sort of knocks that secular purpose into a cocked hat.

So what exactly is the basis for the state's promotion of marriage then... promoting romantic love?

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by scipio337

But I thought civil rights are "inalienable".

If the state can give them out, then the state can give them away.

We'll have to see what the Supreme Court decides when the issue of same sex marriage is finally heard by them.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Yes....and it is being challenged or in the process of being challenged here in Oregon....eventualy both California and Oregon will follow suit with Washington State.

Why would California follow suit? They've had domestic partnerships with

the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses...

Since 1999.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=297-297.5

You've never established why this is "2nd class".

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Publisher

We'll have to see what the Supreme Court decides when the issue of same sex marriage is finally heard by them.

But either way, my civil rights aren't granted by the State.

The Constitution is a limit of governmental powers, not a list of personal rights.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by scipio337

Why would California follow suit? They've had domestic partnerships with

Since 1999.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=297-297.5

You've never established why this is "2nd class".

Here's what in Re Marriage determined:

Offering a legal relationship called "marriage" to opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to "domestic partnerships" impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect.
The distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships risks the right to privacy regarding sexual orientation for those in domestic partnerships.

In other words, gay unions should get to use the term "marriage" for societal acceptance. And if having a domestic partership risks the right to privacy regarding sexual orientation, are same sex marriages to be held in secret?



This is social engineering by judicial fiat.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by scipio337

But either way, my civil rights aren't granted by the State.

The Constitution is a limit of governmental powers, not a list of personal rights.

They are not "granted"...but they are protected...and the state has determined that marriage is a civil right.....the whole issue of same sex marriage is a process by which eventually it will be protected AS a civil right.

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by Havard

Okay, so if that's the case, why promote it at all? Why not just cut out joint filing and the other benefits?

Why limit benefits rather than extend them?

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by Publisher

They are not "granted"...but they are protected...and the state has determined that marriage is a civil right.....the whole issue of same sex marriage is a process by which eventually it will be protected AS a civil right.

Says you.

The Supreme Court has determined that marriage between opposite sexes is a civil right (Loving v Virginia), but lower courts have held that this distinction does not extend to same sex marriage.

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude..

Hernandez v. Robles

And again, since these civil rights are also granted through other means, (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc), please point out which rights are being denied.

[fix]

Originally Posted by Publisher

They are not "granted"...but they are protected...and the state has determined that marriage is a civil right.....the whole issue of same sex marriage is a process by which eventually it will be protected AS a civil right.

Kinda like the "right" to abort a child.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Why limit benefits rather than extend them?

One would at least hope that "benefits" serve some reasonable societal purpose and are not simply granted whimsically. After all, someone does have to pay for "benefits". Some societal groups (apparently, NC being one of them) see societal benefit in providing certain benefits to married people, but do not see it in providing them to homosexual "unions".

.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

No, but surely not to promote making women broodmares.

That's a pretty rude way to refer to the relationship of procreation to marriage. Are my friends who have ten children brood mares? Is that the way you refer to and treat women with large families?

[Havard]

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Why limit benefits rather than extend them?

It depends, how would you extend them, and what's the justification?

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

Often the homosexual couple is much more consequential to the proper functioning and continuation of the human race than many hetero couples out there...

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Incestuous couples, polygamous families and single individuals can all adopt and/or give birth to and raise children. If the ability to raise children is the only criteria, then you would have to favor a complete redefinition of marriage rather than narrowing the scope.

Keeping the traditional marriage has value to society because a traditional family is the natural and best foundation of society. Society should promote and sponsor the ideal.