Gay Marriage

fishin' wrote:

The news snap-shots on the case basically boil down to "Mass SJC rules gays have a right to marry" but the Mass SJC never said that in their original ruling. That issue was never even addressed.

My understanding (which is suspect) is that after the original ruling, the legislature went back to the court and asked whether a civil union of some kind that carried the same rights and privileges as marriage would be sufficient or whether they had to offer "marriage" to same-gender couples. The court ruled the latter, offering their famous (and quite uncompelling) "separate is seldom, if ever, equal". With this one line they removed the legislature's power to try to create something equal. I do not think it is the place of the court to instruct the legislature as to what is POSSIBLE. The court's job is to instruct the legislature as to what is PERMISSABLE. I believe they were right to require MASS to allow same gender unions, but made no compelling legal argument for the notion that those unions MUST be called "marriages".

0 Replies

I have a solution for this whole mess.

If you want to have the benefits of being a couple, you must get a civil union from a government authority that recognizes that you are now a couple. It does not matter if you are hetero or homosexual. This would entitle everyone with the same rights under the law.

If you want to then have a religious ceremony, you may then do that to have your God/Gods recognize your union. Then the churches can keep have their way.

This is really the only way that all American citizens gain equal rights under the law.

CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE!!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I do not think it is the place of the court to instruct the legislature as to what is POSSIBLE. The court's job is to instruct the legislature as to what is PERMISSABLE.

Well, I'll disagree with ya on this one. If the State Legislature goes to the court ad asks their opinion on a pending matter then it's wide open for the court to reply. If you don't want an answer then don't ask the question.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I have a solution for this whole mess.

If you want to have the benefits of being a couple, you must get a civil union from a government authority that recognizes that you are now a couple. It does not matter if you are hetero or homosexual. This would entitle everyone with the same rights under the law.

If you want to then have a religious ceremony, you may then do that to have your God/Gods recognize your union. Then the churches can keep have their way.

This is really the only way that all American citizens gain equal rights under the law.

CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE!!

McG

Scrat forwarded a similar scheme previously. And I think you are both speaking sooth. But it will not be a solution acceptable to many, and that speaks precisely to the problem...it really isn't the semantics, or the formulation of relevant laws...it is the cultural prejudice against homosexuality. To those folks, there is no solution other than the continuing separation into two classes.

0 Replies

blatham, You got that right! Christians who believe in the bible are doomed to ignorance and bigotry - not to mention discrimination against their fellow humans who have done them no harm.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I do not think it is the place of the court to instruct the legislature as to what is POSSIBLE. The court's job is to instruct the legislature as to what is PERMISSABLE.

Well, I'll disagree with ya on this one. If the State Legislature goes to the court ad asks their opinion on a pending matter then it's wide open for the court to reply. If you don't want an answer then don't ask the question.

Are you suggesting that, having been asked for their legal opinion, they are free to give any opinion they like, whether founded in the law or personal preference? My complaint is not that they answered the question, but that I do not think they gave an answer with a sound, legal basis.

But please answer this: do you agree or disagree with my statement which you quote above. If you disagree, can you give me a specific reason why; what flaw do you see in the statement?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

blatham, You got that right! Christians who believe in the bible are doomed to ignorance and bigotry - not to mention discrimination against their fellow humans who have done them no harm.

Cicerone,
I believe in the Bible, but I hold no ill will towards homosexuals. In fact my views on this subject were made perfectly clear early on in this thread.

Your lumping all Christians and believers in the Bible into one large hate group is bigotry of the highest order. Lumping every Christian into the same 'boat' is a reflection of a truly closed mind and one that refuses to accept that everyone has their own interpretation of their beliefs.

I find your attitude very offensive since I have never done any harm to anyone else and yet, by your post, I am some sort of ignorant bigot.

0 Replies

Fedral, All my siblings are christians. My sister told me she doesn't hate homosexuals, only their "sinful acts." Most christians have the same response - a change from several decades ago, when christians loved to quote the bible. I also observe that the majority of Americans are christians, and their support of GWBusy's rhetoric on homosexuals tells me more than I need to know. FYI, I never use "all" to describe any failings of human groups. There are good and bad in all. That's your perspective; if you find it true, live with it. If you're not, why have any guilt at all? You don't need my approval or disapproval for the life you lead. BTW, would you approve of homosexual marriage?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Are you suggesting that, having been asked for their legal opinion, they are free to give any opinion they like, whether founded in the law or personal preference? My complaint is not that they answered the question, but that I do not think they gave an answer with a sound, legal basis.

But please answer this: do you agree or disagree with my statement which you quote above. If you disagree, can you give me a specific reason why; what flaw do you see in the statement?

Your earlier statement is nothing but semantics. The range of "possible" solutions is limited buy the range of "permissable" solutions. In effect, one becomes the other. If the court only sees one permissible solution that falls within the scope of their earlier ruling then how many possible solutions can there be? Answer: One.

You may disagree with the soundness of that ruling but that's neither here nor there. They were asked for an opinion and they gave it and their rationale for it. It's up to the state legislature to challenge the soundness of it and to convince them otherwise but they don't appear to be interested in taking that approach. (Which implies, to me at least, that they accept the soundess of it..)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter,
My views on this topic can be read on page 2 of this thread (about halfway down)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I have a solution for this whole mess.

If you want to have the benefits of being a couple, you must get a civil union from a government authority that recognizes that you are now a couple. It does not matter if you are hetero or homosexual. This would entitle everyone with the same rights under the law.

If you want to then have a religious ceremony, you may then do that to have your God/Gods recognize your union. Then the churches can keep have their way.

This is really the only way that all American citizens gain equal rights under the law.

CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE!!

Frankly, I find this very reasonable. I suspect, though, that most folks on either side of the issue won't. (But, then, I don't particularly value the institution of marriage...)

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Frankly, I find this very reasonable. I suspect, though, that most folks on either side of the issue won't. (But, then, I don't particularly value the institution of marriage...)

In most of the polls I've seen it looks like a lot of people do support this idea. The numbers I've seen range from 45% up to about 65% approving of it. I'm at a loss to explain why no legislature has attempted to take this route.

0 Replies

quote="McGentrix"]I have a solution for this whole mess.

If you want to have the benefits of being a couple, you must get a civil union from a government authority that recognizes that you are now a couple. It does not matter if you are hetero or homosexual. This would entitle everyone with the same rights under the law.

If you want to then have a religious ceremony, you may then do that to have your God/Gods recognize your union. Then the churches can keep have their way.

This is really the only way that all American citizens gain equal rights under the law.

CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE!![/quote]

McGentrix and I agree.....hard to fathom.......

0 Replies

Fedral's quote from page 2; "I have had this argument SO many times during Republican committee meetings that I always bring throat lozenges (just in case this topic comes up)

I have ended up in screaming matches with some of my fellow Conservatives trying to pound some sense into their head (The fun ones to mess with are the Moral Majority whackos)."

Seems we're on the same side on this subject, but you can understand why it's so easy to use one brush when speaking about the "Moral Majority whackos."

My apologies for my offense to you.

0 Replies

Yay! Now if we can just all our representatives to see the light...

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

patiodog wrote:
Frankly, I find this very reasonable. I suspect, though, that most folks on either side of the issue won't. (But, then, I don't particularly value the institution of marriage...)

In most of the polls I've seen it looks like a lot of people do support this idea. The numbers I've seen range from 45% up to about 65% approving of it. I'm at a loss to explain why no legislature has attempted to take this route.

It is a taboo matter - no politician wants to touch it. Like all civil rights actions, they have to be energized by the recepient. And, it is hard for them to get their voices heard. Now, it has been - so action will be taken!

0 Replies

That's a super interesting idea, not least because it gets straight at the semantics. I like it, but there is a big part of me that whines "but I don't WANNA be civilly united! I wanna be MARRIED!" And if religion is out of it, the only option would be a civil union, for me.

0 Replies

Marriage, to me, is between you and your God. Civil union is the only vehicle a government can bless.

0 Replies

It's simple...

If you want a governmentally approved civil contract, you go through the civil ceremony.

If you want a religious ceremony showing your partership before God, you have religious ceremony.

You can have both or either or none. Government is kept safely out of the church's affairs and all people are again equal in the eyes of the state.

0 Replies

The main problem I see with it as a practical matter is that suddenly the whole issue of "those homos are trodding on MY rights" actually has an element of truth. If gay marriage is added, but Joe and Jane Agnostic can go ahead and get married, whatever. If Joe and Jane Agnostic suddenly can't get married, they won't be happy.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know