Progress is important Shamrock, yes. But blindly diving forward in the social progress department is reckless and will have consequences.

 

(not necesarrily saying this about gay marriage)

625448[/snapback]

If there is a legit reason for slowing that progress than maybe yes. But as of yet I have not heard one.

Progress is important Shamrock, yes.? But blindly diving forward in the social progress department is reckless and will have consequences.

 

(not necesarrily saying this about gay marriage)

625448[/snapback]

If there is a legit reason for slowing that progress than maybe yes. But as of yet I have not heard one.

625465[/snapback]

 

Open your ears, man. Being open-minded involves actually being open minded.

 

I'm not going to delve into any specific issue, I'm just saying.

You honestly think CBS has a rational basis on which to not air this ad?

 

It's too controversial. If they aired that ad, the flak that ABC took over something as innocuous as the TO-Nicolette Sheridan ad would seem tame compared to the firestorm that would ensue from Red-State America.

I want to ask those of you on this board (i kno sorianofan and I always disagreed on this but) If all of a sudden congress says ok we have a law that will give homosexuals ALL of the same rights associated with marriage, BUT it wont be called marriage itll be called Civil partnership. Would you guys agree or will you prefer if this law be struck down in favor of a new one that calls it marriage, even though the current law is about to get passed and if it is struck down it may take months or years more worth of arguments before anything is resolved. So basically what is more important giving people equal rights or the semantic victory?

actually, such a thing exists, its called a "joint venture agreement" i believe.

rights first, semantics later.

I want to ask those of you on this board (i kno sorianofan and I always disagreed on this but) If all of a sudden congress says ok we have a law that will give homosexuals ALL of the same rights associated with marriage, BUT it wont be called marriage itll be called Civil partnership. Would you guys agree or will you prefer if this law be struck down in favor of a new one that calls it marriage, even though the current law is about to get passed and if it is struck down it may take months or years more worth of arguments before anything is resolved. So basically what is more important giving people equal rights or the semantic victory?

626100[/snapback]

Id be fine with the law and total acceptance. It would have no chance though. If the debate really was over the semantics of the term marriage then we probably wouldnt have much of a problem. But look at most of those amendments passed by various states. They include civil unions and marriage. What does that tell you? People just dont want gays to have the same rights. The whole marriage sanctity stuff may be for some people but for most its a crock of s***. Luckily they can hide behind the sanctity of marriage argument while openly denying peopel equal protection of the law.

 

 

For example, this article talks about Kentucky's ban:

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/election/20...y1103-6582.html

 

The amendment states: that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

 

But notice what the people there talk about: I think the people of Kentucky agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman," said Jeff Klusmeier, communications director of the group Yes for Traditional Marriage.

 

"As a culture we've got to uphold the sanctity of marriage and send a message to our children and to the rest of the nation," Klusmeier said

 

"We brought gay equality into the conversations of every household in Kentucky. That's a huge victory."

 

 

The evidence is clear in my mind. The states that voted for these amendments voted not for the sanctity of marriage but voted on a referendum against homosexuality.

 

Nobody who wants to defend this will ever address the discrepency. At least say youre against gays having equality as this guy does or say you want to protect marriage. But hiding behind one and engaging in the other is pure fraud.

 

 

 

 

Im not in the least bit surprised though. Its a great lowly tactic. Frame the issue one way and then discriminate the other.

I want to ask those of you on this board (i kno sorianofan and I always disagreed on this but) If all of a sudden congress says ok we have a law that will give homosexuals ALL of the same rights associated with marriage, BUT it wont be called marriage itll be called Civil partnership. Would you guys agree or will you prefer if this law be struck down in favor of a new one that calls it marriage, even though the current law is about to get passed and if it is struck down it may take months or years more worth of arguments before anything is resolved. So basically what is more important giving people equal rights or the semantic victory?

626100[/snapback]

Id be fine with the law and total acceptance. It would have no chance though. If the debate really was over the semantics of the term marriage then we probably wouldnt have much of a problem. But look at most of those amendments passed by various states. They include civil unions and marriage. What does that tell you? People just dont want gays to have the same rights. The whole marriage sanctity stuff may be for some people but for most its a crock of s***. Luckily they can hide behind the sanctity of marriage argument while openly denying peopel equal protection of the law.

 

 

For example, this article talks about Kentucky's ban:

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/election/20...y1103-6582.html

 

The amendment states: that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

 

But notice what the people there talk about: I think the people of Kentucky agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman," said Jeff Klusmeier, communications director of the group Yes for Traditional Marriage.

 

"As a culture we've got to uphold the sanctity of marriage and send a message to our children and to the rest of the nation," Klusmeier said

 

"We brought gay equality into the conversations of every household in Kentucky. That's a huge victory."

 

 

The evidence is clear in my mind. The states that voted for these amendments voted not for the sanctity of marriage but voted on a referendum against homosexuality.

 

Nobody who wants to defend this will ever address the discrepency. At least say youre against gays having equality as this guy does or say you want to protect marriage. But hiding behind one and engaging in the other is pure fraud.

 

 

 

 

Im not in the least bit surprised though. Its a great lowly tactic. Frame the issue one way and then discriminate the other.

626398[/snapback]

 

You're saying people who voted in favor of this referendum are voting against homosexuality?!

 

WTF?

 

You've got to understand that we social conservatives simply don't see it as a right, plain and simple! Does NOT mean we are against homosexuality!

 

Say for example, F_M, that born again Christians begin demanding their "right to" teach the Bible in school.

 

I know you'd be against this, but I don't say that it makes you anti-Christian!

 

You're equating things illogically!

I want to ask those of you on this board (i kno sorianofan and I always disagreed on this but) If all of a sudden congress says ok we have a law that will give homosexuals ALL of the same rights associated with marriage, BUT it wont be called marriage itll be called Civil partnership. Would you guys agree or will you prefer if this law be struck down in favor of a new one that calls it marriage, even though the current law is about to get passed and if it is struck down it may take months or years more worth of arguments before anything is resolved. So basically what is more important giving people equal rights or the semantic victory?

626100[/snapback]

Id be fine with the law and total acceptance. It would have no chance though. If the debate really was over the semantics of the term marriage then we probably wouldnt have much of a problem. But look at most of those amendments passed by various states. They include civil unions and marriage. What does that tell you? People just dont want gays to have the same rights. The whole marriage sanctity stuff may be for some people but for most its a crock of s***. Luckily they can hide behind the sanctity of marriage argument while openly denying peopel equal protection of the law.

 

 

For example, this article talks about Kentucky's ban:

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/election/20...y1103-6582.html

 

The amendment states: that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

 

But notice what the people there talk about: I think the people of Kentucky agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman," said Jeff Klusmeier, communications director of the group Yes for Traditional Marriage.

 

"As a culture we've got to uphold the sanctity of marriage and send a message to our children and to the rest of the nation," Klusmeier said

 

"We brought gay equality into the conversations of every household in Kentucky. That's a huge victory."

 

 

The evidence is clear in my mind. The states that voted for these amendments voted not for the sanctity of marriage but voted on a referendum against homosexuality.

 

Nobody who wants to defend this will ever address the discrepency. At least say youre against gays having equality as this guy does or say you want to protect marriage. But hiding behind one and engaging in the other is pure fraud.

 

 

 

 

Im not in the least bit surprised though. Its a great lowly tactic. Frame the issue one way and then discriminate the other.

626398[/snapback]

 

You're saying people who voted in favor of this referendum are voting against homosexuality?!

 

WTF?

 

You've got to understand that we social conservatives simply don't see it as a right, plain and simple! Does NOT mean we are against homosexuality!

 

Say for example, F_M, that born again Christians begin demanding their "right to" teach the Bible in school.

 

I know you'd be against this, but I don't say that it makes you anti-Christian!

 

You're equating things illogically!

626720[/snapback]

 

Im going to give an explanation and I want you to read the whole thing. This summarizes my view on this just so there is no confusion:

 

 

Here is the clear and present distinction that you HAVE to understand. NOBODY, not one person, not you, nor I, has the right to get married. I have never ever questioned that.

 

However, you and I and every other individual in this country do have a simple right. Its called equal protection of the law. Its in the Constitution and every state Constitution that governs state law and regulates the activity of federal and state actors. That means that anytime a law discriminates against one person as opposed to another, the state actor must justify this in clear and present terms. Now many laws discriminate. For example, people who go too fast are punished for speeding. But every state actor has to justfy said law on a bare bones basis. For that law, its clear that it is meant to protect the citizenry from fast drivers.

 

Now the way the equal protection laws are usually set up, the standard tends to vary. For discrimination based on race(including reverse discrimination), religion, national origin, etc, a state actor has to justify to a very high level called strict scrutiny. But for regular discrimination not based on some insular minority, the test is very very very very low. You simply have to show a rational basis and courts generally defer to your rational basis.

 

Now lets look at the right to government benefits. If the state says government benefits can only go to say, a married couple as opposed to an unmarried uncouple, it has to still justify it. How does it do so? Simple, promote marriage and families. Ok..that makes sense. If states want to give married people benefits to prevent the destruction of families, they can go right ahead and do so.

 

But what basis does a state have to oppose gays from marrying and recieving the same benefits as opposed to straight couple? What reason is there to discriminate against a gay person in this regard? What reason is there to suspend the equal protection of the law? This is the ultimate thrust of this debate CF.

 

Now you might argue that its to protect the sanctity of marriage. That the term marriage is a sacred term meant for religious connotations and that the sanctity of said term should not be suspended. That may be the rational basis on which to operate. Now this has not been tested on a federal level since States are the ones who issue marriages and from what I know, SCOTUS has avoided it. But on a state level, as I stated above, states also have the equal protection clause to operate under from their individual Constitutions.

 

Which brings us to Mass Supreme Court. That court ruled that under Massachusets' Constitution, the state law discriminating against gays on marriage had no rational basis on equal protection. This, of course, is what prompted the issue to come forward. Now many states, fearing their laws would also be struck down on the basis of discrimination, have passed these amendments which are not subject to their Constitutions.

 

Now here is when I believe the injustice has been done. This is very important:

 

If you want to have these laws on the books because you think the RATIONAL BASIS, on which to define marriage as between a man and a women is to protect the sanctity of marriages, then take that position. Please stick with that position that it is to protect the SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. If you think your state is going to not buy that view the way Mass SC did not as a rational basis, then go and push for an amendment ON THOSE GROUNDS.

 

Now, if it is to protect the sanctity of marriages, then why prevent benefits via civil unions? What is the RATIONAL BASIS, behind that? THAT MY FRIEND, IS WHERE I FEEL THERE IS HYPOCRISY. You can no longer claim the sanctity of marriage stuff when it comes to civil unions now can you? Nope. So now what fear is there? What basis is there to discriminate on one group of citizenry when it is not based on the sanctity of marriages?

 

YES ITS BENEFITS ARE NO RIGHT BUT EQUAL PROTECTION IS AND YOU MUST GIVE A REASON WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY EQUAL PROTECTION!

 

Thats clear and simple. If you dont want to give a reason or dont think the reason is valid and simply want to discriminate...what do you do? YOU PASS AN AMENDMENT TAKING AWAY CIVIL UNIONS!! And what did they do? They took away civil unions! Now what happens when people ask them why? They say marriage! But thats not the reason now is it as evidenced clearly and evidently.

 

The proof is in the pudding my friend. They dont want to discriminate against gays because they are gay. For no reason other than that. They cant have it through the laws because the equal protection clause prevents them from doing do, that simple right stops them. So they go through amendments.

btw the Christian in school thing is wrong on two fronts. First off its inapplicable because of the establishment clause/relgion right. Second, the right to equal protection of the law is clear and evident and it is a right. Ive explained it above.

Overcomplicating a much simpler argument. MOST people who are against civil unions its because they fair that will be a steeping stone to marriage. If yo ucan guarantee them that it will forever stay at civil union people will march to a different beat. Regardless I dont care about it either way, I just think if people are reluctant to allow civil union why push for marriage and make it harder for these protections to be granted

Overcomplicating a much simpler argument. MOST people who are against civil unions its because they fair that will be a steeping stone to marriage. If yo ucan guarantee them that it will forever stay at civil union people will march to a different beat. Regardless I dont care about it either way, I just think if people are reluctant to allow civil union why push for marriage and make it harder for these protections to be granted

626773[/snapback]

Its not overcomplicating when someone asserts a defense that there is no right to marriage. Clearly the issue has nothing to do with a right to marriage but rather a right to equal view under the law. Thats what it is all about.

 

 

Are you kidding me on the stepping stone stuff? Come on legacy. How in the world can anyone be convinced that it will not be a stepping stone to marriage? Do you really think any argument can operate in that context? Youre effecitvley asking either for a miracle or to abandon the battle for reception of benefits all together.

Overcomplicating a much simpler argument. MOST people who are against civil unions its because they fair that will be a steeping stone to marriage. If yo ucan guarantee them that it will forever stay at civil union people will march to a different beat. Regardless I dont care about it either way, I just think if people are reluctant to allow civil union why push for marriage and make it harder for these protections to be granted

626773[/snapback]

Its not overcomplicating when someone asserts a defense that there is no right to marriage. Clearly the issue has nothing to do with a right to marriage but rather a right to equal view under the law. Thats what it is all about.

 

 

Are you kidding me on the stepping stone stuff? Come on legacy. How in the world can anyone be convinced that it will not be a stepping stone to marriage? Do you really think any argument can operate in that context? Youre effecitvley asking either for a miracle or to abandon the battle for reception of benefits all together.

626775[/snapback]

 

Federal amendment is the only way to do it. Im against this anyway but a fed amendment forbidding gay marriage and allowing unions would be ideal to end this nonsense. Not syaing itll happen or that it should

Overcomplicating a much simpler argument. MOST people who are against civil unions its because they fair that will be a steeping stone to marriage. If yo ucan guarantee them that it will forever stay at civil union people will march to a different beat. Regardless I dont care about it either way, I just think if people are reluctant to allow civil union why push for marriage and make it harder for these protections to be granted

626773[/snapback]

Its not overcomplicating when someone asserts a defense that there is no right to marriage. Clearly the issue has nothing to do with a right to marriage but rather a right to equal view under the law. Thats what it is all about.

 

 

Are you kidding me on the stepping stone stuff? Come on legacy. How in the world can anyone be convinced that it will not be a stepping stone to marriage? Do you really think any argument can operate in that context? Youre effecitvley asking either for a miracle or to abandon the battle for reception of benefits all together.

626775[/snapback]

 

Federal amendment is the only way to do it. Im against this anyway but a fed amendment forbidding gay marriage and allowing unions would be ideal to end this nonsense. Not syaing itll happen or that it should

626777[/snapback]

 

Like you said, I dont think that passes. IMO, and again its my opinion, I think this has more to do with gays than marriage. I think a lot of people hide behind the marriage argument because they know that choice of the two will never have to be made.

Very interesting thoughts F_M. Completely new perspective to me.

 

For the record, I'm in support of civil unions with completely equal rights.

Here's where I stand:

 

CBS and NBC have every right not to air commercials that could offend people, including their key demographics. In the end TV and cable networks make most, if not all of their decisions, based on what will make them the biggest profit, and the best ratings. Some of these TV controversies, such as the Janet Jackson incident and the Terrell Owens/Desperate Housewives thing were most likely not accidents. Remember, controversy= bigger media attention, and in turn, higher ratings.

 

However, I do not personally agree with their decisions. I think that gays should be allowed the same rights as any other persons. This strange vendetta of Bush's to get this marriage restriction amendment to the Constitution passed just makes me think of politicians like Strom Thurmond, who used people's differences to their advantage. The good news is that there isn't much likelyhood of the amendment getting passed, at least not for now.

bush's strange obssession? gay marriage has been an issue for most of the 90s and 00s. Fed amendment is jus the newest chapter in the continuing saga. same s*** different day

bush's strange obssession? gay marriage has been an issue for most of the 90s and 00s. Fed amendment is jus the newest chapter in the continuing saga. same s*** different day

627055[/snapback]

 

I don't think its a "Strange obssession" as much as it is simply a political ploy by Bush to pander to a dependable voting bloc (evangelical Christians and Christians in general), much in the way that Dems pander to their reliable voting blocs, such as blacks or pro-abortion folks.

That sums it up nicely.