*but approaches in levels of commitment etc.
<>
Care to explain how they "approach" in levels of commitment but aren't equal in that regard?
*but approaches in levels of commitment etc.
<>
Just wanted to correct part of this claim here (it's from the article nathan posted). Of the major Jewish 'denominations' in the US, only Orthodoxy doesn't 'officially endorse gay marriage'--meaning that around 85% of religious American Jews belong to a denomination endorsing gay marriage.very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage
Well, at least you're honest: marriage is more about sex-based binary relationship roles than it is about anything else, including love or plans for children.
In general, gay men have significantly more partners - even while within relationships.Care to explain how they "approach" in levels of commitment but aren't equal in that regard?
volk
even while within relationships.
Source?
Federal law contains no provisions concerning referenda or ballot initiatives, which is why only some states offer them. While the California Constitution obviously provides for them, and prescribes the means by which CA citizens may qualify a measure for the ballot, the California courts are nonetheless empowered to order qualified initiatives to be removed from the ballot, as well as to annul successfully passed initiatives, both of which have happened before. If such actions actually violated federally protected voting rights, as you're suggesting, then obviously the federal government wouldn't have allowed that.So who gets to decide on who has the right to vote?
You gotta admit: it takes balls nowadays to say marriage isn't a civil right and that the Supreme Court had no business extending that non-civil right to the Lovings, because the good people of Virginia, through their freely and democratically elected representatives, had outlawed just that thing years before.
sexual orientaion is not protected under the constitution.
<>
This is always my favorite excuse for an unanswered question. Especially when it's coupled with extensive research for the half-assed answer it accompanies.just because a lot of us have more important things to do than hang out in FYM all day.
But it isn't. You already said that. Now I'm confused.recognizing the civil right of marriage
This isn't what those uppity gayz want, and you know that.declaring that marriage is a civil right which extends to anyone who wants to marry anyone at any time, regardless of gender, grouping, etc --
Quoted legal cases which rule that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't count where the gayz are concerned is a nice touch. If I cared, I'm sure I could dig up cases where the blacks didn't count for a while. All supported by the holy right of the voters to deny those rights. Which is something you still haven't addressed, along with Irvine's SINGLE question.which neither Baker v. Nelson in 1972 nor Hernandez v. Robles in 2007 affirmed? Baker, which was argued in the shadows of Loving, said that the Loving precedent only applied to opposite-sex marriages -- and Hernandez, which specifically cited Loving, agreed. So the application of Loving is a bit of a stretch from a legal perspective.
By moving forward in time? By recognizing that rights can be extended to groups who have none? By understanding that changing unfair practices of the past is the mark of a civilized people? I dunno. What's your answer?Now how exactly should a self-governed people respond to a ruling that is both illegal at a state and federal level, and has no solid legal precedent?
So what's the big deal, then?It might also be helpful to point out again that the same rights of marriage in the state of CA have already been conferred to registered domestic partners.
nathan, could you tell me what marital rights should be withheld from gay couples, and why?
be specific.
In general, gay men have significantly more partners - even while within relationships.
Is there a difference between recognizing the civil right of marriage to someone of the opposite sex but different race (as Loving affirmed), and declaring that marriage is a civil right which extends to anyone who wants to marry anyone at any time, regardless of gender, grouping, etc -- which neither Baker v. Nelson in 1972 nor Hernandez v. Robles in 2007 affirmed?
I think this may have been, in effect, his answer here:this really is the crux of it, and it's the crux of nathan's arguments which he's referenced, but hasn't returned to defend or expand upon. if marriage is about solidifying and codifying "natural" sex roles, i think it's only logical that there are certain privileges given to married straight folk that cannot be replicated in a civil union. i'd just like to know what those are.
In which case, the issue really is just the title itself, because granting it to same-sex relationships would mean granting social and cultural sanction to a relationship that might lead to parenthood, and thus by extension to same-sex parenting. Yes, many unmarried heteros have kids; yes, many gay and lesbian couples have kids too; there'd be no practicable way of preventing those things--but, we don't sanction them with a title which happens to carry the cultural resonance of "best environment in which to raise children." Unfortunately, plenty of far-from-"best" hetero parents do have that sanction; but again, there's no practicable way to prevent that since you can't tell in advance which ones they are, whereas same-sex couples are easy to spot. Childless married heteros are irrelevant to the question because, well, they're childless. And while plenty of gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry might say (and mean) that they have no interest in becoming parents, there's no practicable way to know for sure that they won't.What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.
At least, that's how I understand his argument.
Presumably most people who hold this stance on same-sex marriage are also opposed to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt but, perhaps conveniently, that's legally a separate issue from marriage rights.
or is it in society's best interests to marginalize and stigmatize them as much as possible so that their sex-role challenging relationships don't challenge and undermine and subvert the male/female binary relationship that produces children? (i guess because it's so fragile?)
I thought it was awesome...
I'm sure Lila will be along shortly to post a clip
I especially like John's arguments about using the "tradition" of marriage as a defense being weak since things like polygamy used to be accepted and interracial marriages used to be discouraged.
His line about how a person can chose their religion but not chose their sexuality was spot on as well