Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Gay Marriage 2: Bigotry Wins - Mormonality

Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand
(05-26) 10:29 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.

Justice Carlos Moreno, in a lone dissent, said a majority should not be allowed to deprive a minority of fundamental rights by passing an initiative.

The justices ruled unanimously that Prop. 8 was not retroactive and that gay and lesbian couples who relied on the court's May 2008 ruling to get married before the Nov. 4 election will remain legally wed.

Prop. 8, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, passed with a 52 percent majority after an intense and expensive campaign. Sponsors, mainly affiliated with Christian conservative groups, raised nearly $40 million for the measure and opponents more than $45 million - combined, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue anywhere in the nation.

The ruling, the court's third major decision on same-sex marriage in five years, may be the last word from the state's legal system on the issue. But the matter is far from settled in the political arena. Gay-rights advocates, anticipating the decision, have discussed putting another constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 to try to repeal Prop. 8.

Meanwhile, same-sex marriage has been legalized by the Supreme Courts of Iowa and Connecticut and the legislatures of Vermont and Maine, joining Massachusetts, whose high court issued the first such ruling in 2003. Similar legislation is pending in New Hampshire and New York.

California's legal battle dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 4,000 weddings took place in the next month before the state Supreme Court ordered a halt, then voided the marriages in August 2004 and found unanimously that Newsom had no authority to disregard state law.

The city and a number of couples quickly returned to court and sued to overturn the law. They won in Superior Court, lost in an appeals court, and won in the state's high court on May 15, 2008 - but by then, their opponents had already submitted more than 1 million signatures qualifying Prop. 8 for the November ballot.

This time, the issue before the justices was whether the voters' power to amend the Constitution by initiative.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits were two groups of same-sex couples, some already married and some thwarted by Prop. 8, along with an array of local governments led by San Francisco. They argued that a measure eliminating fundamental rights exceeds the scope of a constitutional amendment and amounts to a revision, which needs a two-thirds legislative vote or approval from delegates at a state constitutional convention to reach the ballot.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who usually defends state laws in court, joined Prop. 8's opponents and argued that "inalienable rights" in the California Constitution cannot be repealed by majority vote.

Prop. 8's sponsors noted that the court had declared ballot measures to be revisions only twice. The court has rejected similar challenges to such far-reaching measures as a legislative term-limits initiative, the Proposition 13 tax cut and the reinstatement of the death penalty.

Backers of the measure argued that the people are the highest political authority in California and the court should defer to their judgment.

The case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.
link

Lord Yod on
steam_sig.png
«13456765

Posts

  • TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is there any evidence that churches can be sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage? Aren't churches allowed to, you know, tell people to fuck off if they don't want to marry them?

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that churches can be sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage? Aren't churches allowed to, you know, tell people to fuck off if they don't want to marry them?

    This.

    In Vermont, JPs must perform civil unions. Churches, however, don't need to do any such thing.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that churches can be sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage? Aren't churches allowed to, you know, tell people to fuck off if they don't want to marry them?
    Of course there's not. This is just what churches tell people in order to get them to vote against gay marriage. And given how much most churches preach about honesty, that tells you the level of hypocrisy we're dealing with, here.

  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Actually, I think that some churches have a valid concern about being sued- take this example from the OP:
    On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
    While I do think there's a possiblity of them being sued, I'm 99% sure that they'd prevail- see the Boy Scouts.

    It's still a bullshit excuse, though.

    BNsig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    Actually, I think that some churches have a valid concern about being sued- take this example from the OP:
    On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
    While I do think there's a possiblity of them being sued, I'm 99% sure that they'd prevail- see the Boy Scouts.

    It's still a bullshit excuse, though.
    One lawsuit isn't going to cost them a significant amount of money. And that's really all it's going to take before all similar claims are immediately thrown out. As long as they're not getting government funding, they can do whatever the fuck they want.

  • TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    Actually, I think that some churches have a valid concern about being sued- take this example from the OP:
    On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
    While I do think there's a possiblity of them being sued, I'm 99% sure that they'd prevail- see the Boy Scouts.

    It's still a bullshit excuse, though.

    Aren't private colleges basically allowed to discriminate as they see fit?

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    Actually, I think that some churches have a valid concern about being sued- take this example from the OP:
    On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
    While I do think there's a possiblity of them being sued, I'm 99% sure that they'd prevail- see the Boy Scouts.

    It's still a bullshit excuse, though.
    Aren't private colleges basically allowed to discriminate as they see fit?
    As long as they aren't getting any sort of government funding, for the most part, yes.

  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Aren't you prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation when renting, though?

    steam_sig.png
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    Actually, I think that some churches have a valid concern about being sued- take this example from the OP:
    On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
    While I do think there's a possiblity of them being sued, I'm 99% sure that they'd prevail- see the Boy Scouts.

    It's still a bullshit excuse, though.
    Aren't private colleges basically allowed to discriminate as they see fit?
    As long as they aren't getting any sort of government funding, for the most part, yes.
    Exactly my point.

    BNsig.jpg
  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that churches can be sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage? Aren't churches allowed to, you know, tell people to fuck off if they don't want to marry them?

    This.

    In Vermont, JPs must perform civil unions. Churches, however, don't need to do any such thing.

    Churches are, in essence, private organization with non-profit status. They can turn anyone away. Or any religious institution can turn anyone away from performing a marriage. For example, synagogues can refuse to perform marriages on any who isn't Jewish (or in the case of Orthodox synagogues, not Jewish enough).

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Aren't you prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation when renting, though?
    Depending on what state you live in, possibly. But you're also prohibited from discriminating based on marital status in most states, and that's not stopping them; I'm guessing there's a special exception for on-campus housing (there is for an awful lot of things when it comes to campus housing).

  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    I voted against the Florida equivalent of Proposition 8 for that very reason. You don't need gay marriage if soon enough everyone will be able to get civil unions.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Aren't you prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation when renting, though?
    Depending on what state you live in, possibly. But you're also prohibited from discriminating based on marital status in most states, and that's not stopping them; I'm guessing there's a special exception for on-campus housing (there is for an awful lot of things when it comes to campus housing).

    Since we're talking about a California law, how about we stick to the laws in California? :P
    Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability
    http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discrimination.shtml

    Seems like there probably is an exemption for married student housing - I live down the street from UC Berkeley's married student housing village - but I think the churches may have a point on this one.

    steam_sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Aren't you prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation when renting, though?
    Depending on what state you live in, possibly. But you're also prohibited from discriminating based on marital status in most states, and that's not stopping them; I'm guessing there's a special exception for on-campus housing (there is for an awful lot of things when it comes to campus housing).

    Since we're talking about a California law, how about we stick to the laws in California? :P
    Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability
    http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discrimination.shtml

    Seems like there probably is an exemption for married student housing - I live down the street from UC Berkeley's married student housing village - but I think the churches may have a point on this one.
    They have a point that someone could, potentially, sue them for that? Yes. They have a point that this is a good reason not to have gay marriage? No.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Aren't you prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation when renting, though?
    Depending on what state you live in, possibly. But you're also prohibited from discriminating based on marital status in most states, and that's not stopping them; I'm guessing there's a special exception for on-campus housing (there is for an awful lot of things when it comes to campus housing).

    Since we're talking about a California law, how about we stick to the laws in California? :P
    Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability
    http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discrimination.shtml

    Seems like there probably is an exemption for married student housing - I live down the street from UC Berkeley's married student housing village - but I think the churches may have a point on this one.
    So if you can't discriminate based on marital status, doesn't that mean you can't have "married housing?" I guess we should ban hetero marriage, too.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Aren't you prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation when renting, though?
    Depending on what state you live in, possibly. But you're also prohibited from discriminating based on marital status in most states, and that's not stopping them; I'm guessing there's a special exception for on-campus housing (there is for an awful lot of things when it comes to campus housing).

    Since we're talking about a California law, how about we stick to the laws in California? :P
    Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability
    http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discrimination.shtml

    Seems like there probably is an exemption for married student housing - I live down the street from UC Berkeley's married student housing village - but I think the churches may have a point on this one.
    So if you can't discriminate based on marital status, doesn't that mean you can't have "married housing?" I guess we should ban hetero marriage, too.

    Well, I would say that schools a) have an exemption and/or b) are allowed to have housing for one group as long as it doesn't make up ALL of their housing.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    That sounds more reasonable and also fits reality. Plus it seems to make same-sex marriage a non-issue for those folks.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    No. He said he supported civil unions rather than full marriage, which is boilerplate for Democrats, but there has never been any indication that actively working for civil unions is part of his agenda. That's not bullshitting, but it's not strong gay rights advocacy, either.

  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    No. He said he supported civil unions rather than full marriage, which is boilerplate for Democrats, but there has never been any indication that actively working for civil unions is part of his agenda. That's not bullshitting, but it's not strong gay rights advocacy, either.

    Wouldn't working to get civil unions rather than full Church approved marriage make it easier to eventually attain actual gay "marriage" in a more liberal future? Baby steps?

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Most likely. Your point?

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    No. He said he supported civil unions rather than full marriage, which is boilerplate for Democrats, but there has never been any indication that actively working for civil unions is part of his agenda. That's not bullshitting, but it's not strong gay rights advocacy, either.

    Wouldn't working to get civil unions rather than full Church approved marriage make it easier to eventually attain actual gay "marriage" in a more liberal future? Baby steps?

    If they can get a civil union, why worry about giving them officially recognized marriages?

    Seperate but equal.

    Spoiler:
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Also how exactly is our government going to push for "church approved" marriage? The fight is for legal marriage.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Seperate but equal.

    Isn't separate inherently not equal?

    steam_sig.png
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Also how exactly is our government going to push for "church approved" marriage? The fight is for legal marriage.

    You're going to have to clarify the strong distinction between civil union and legal marriage.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Seperate but equal.

    Isn't separate inherently not equal?

    So says the US Supreme Court.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    No. He said he supported civil unions rather than full marriage, which is boilerplate for Democrats, but there has never been any indication that actively working for civil unions is part of his agenda. That's not bullshitting, but it's not strong gay rights advocacy, either.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/
    Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

    That seems to be part of his agenda to me...

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Seperate but equal.

    Isn't separate inherently not equal?

    I was being sarcastic.

    But I also have a very serious problem with civil unions. We shouldn't be trying to bridge the fucking gap here, one side of the argument is very clearly wrong and we shouldn't have to give them an inch on it. I feel like civil unions for everybody is ceding to those people and I can't tolerate that purely on principle. Nothing needs to be renamed to fix this problem, all that has to happen to resolve this is for the Mormons and their ilk to shut right the fuck up and let progress happen.

    Unfortunately, that's not feasible currently, and despite the amount of ire that this bipartisanship-gone-too-far solution draws from me, I know it's better to get the GLBT community rights right now.

    I'm deeply conflicted.

    Spoiler:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    A statement on the web site isn't really working towards it, it's a statement of support. When he's pushing legislation he'll be working towards it.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Also how exactly is our government going to push for "church approved" marriage? The fight is for legal marriage.

    You're going to have to clarify the strong distinction between civil union and legal marriage.
    AFAIK, marriages in any state are recognized in any other whereas civil unions (in the states that have them) aren't necessarily recognized by other states.

    Don't forget the "it's the same thing" argument cuts both ways.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Seperate but equal.

    Isn't separate inherently not equal?

    I was being sarcastic.

    But I also have a very serious problem with civil unions. We shouldn't be trying to bridge the fucking gap here, one side of the argument is very clearly wrong and we shouldn't have to give them an inch on it. I feel like civil unions for everybody is ceding to those people and I can't tolerate that purely on principle. Nothing needs to be renamed to fix this problem, all that has to happen to resolve this is for the Mormons and their ilk to shut right the fuck up and let progress happen.

    Unfortunately, that's not feasible currently, and despite the amount of ire that this bipartisanship-gone-too-far solution draws from me, I know it's better to get the GLBT community rights right now.

    I'm deeply conflicted.

    Back during the primary campaign trail, his stance was leave marriage to the churches and give civil unions to all. I think this is the best scenario, but I am not holding my breath.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    A statement on the web site isn't really working towards it, it's a statement of support. When he's pushing legislation he'll be working towards it.

    All my point was is that Hachface can't really say there isn't any indication civil unions are part of his agenda when that statement is IN his agenda. Of course as you say, I'll believe it when I see some legislation being pushed.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The government should just get out of Marriage altogether. If you get Married in a church then at the same time you are issued your Civil Partnership with all the paperwork, however if you want you can get your Civil Partnership Issued at any location with witnesses etc. The Government would only care about Civil Partnerships, and rights/privilages would only be issued to those with them. Marraiges made before date X when the law came into effect would automatically be treated as Civil Partnerships.

    Any two consenting adults could enter a Civil Partnership, unless either was already in one, or they were 1st cousins or closer.

    Let the church bicker about what Marriage is, and lets get on with the business of equality.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    Isn't Obama working to allow civil unions anyway?

    Not particularly. Please read things.

    So he was bullshitting?

    No. He said he supported civil unions rather than full marriage, which is boilerplate for Democrats, but there has never been any indication that actively working for civil unions is part of his agenda. That's not bullshitting, but it's not strong gay rights advocacy, either.

    Wouldn't working to get civil unions rather than full Church approved marriage make it easier to eventually attain actual gay "marriage" in a more liberal future? Baby steps?

    Nobody anywhere is pushing for church-approved marriages. There have been dozens and dozens of gay marriage discussions on this board. Go back and read one of them.

  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs, not a single one of us is saying that the state should have anything to do with what a church wants to call marriage. This is a separate issue.

    steam_sig.png
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Correct, the point has and has always been the rights that go along with marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and being able to collect pensions/life insurance/etc for one's partner should something unfortunate occur. It's just that those arguing in the other corner have been making completely disingenuous arguments about "sanctity of marriage" and the rights of the church.

    EDIT: Further before someone pips up about the Church being "forced" to marry someone, we should all have a little chat about divorce, and how you can have the state recognize both you're divorce and new marriage, but the priest at the local parish isn't going to perform the ceremony without an annulment from Rome.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Honestly, if all partnerships were legally civil unions, and religiously or colloquially marriages, would "separate but equal" apply?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    The government should just get out of Marriage altogether. If you get Married in a church then at the same time you are issued your Civil Partnership with all the paperwork, however if you want you can get your Civil Partnership Issued at any location with witnesses etc. The Government would only care about Civil Partnerships, and rights/privilages would only be issued to those with them. Marraiges made before date X when the law came into effect would automatically be treated as Civil Partnerships.

    Any two consenting adults could enter a Civil Partnership, unless either was already in one, or they were 1st cousins or closer.

    Let the church bicker about what Marriage is, and lets get on with the business of equality.

    Agreed.

    eokNV.jpg
  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Honestly, if all partnerships were legally civil unions, and religiously or colloquially marriages, would "separate but equal" apply?

    I can't imagine any way they would be. Since freedom of religion is a two way street, the government can't force churches to perform gay marriages (not that anyone here suggested that). If a gay couple wanted to be "married" in the colloquial sense, all it would take is finding a willing priest/rabbi/whatever.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
«13456765
This discussion has been closed.