― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (nineteen years ago) link
"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.
As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (nineteen years ago) link
This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.
That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (nineteen years ago) link
However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit
― Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (nineteen years ago) link
So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?
― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (nineteen years ago) link
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (nineteen years ago) link
It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (nineteen years ago) link
I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (nineteen years ago) link
The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.
The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.
― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (nineteen years ago) link
I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (nineteen years ago) link
x-post
― Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (nineteen years ago) link
God, I hate that idiot.
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (nineteen years ago) link
I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (nineteen years ago) link
However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.
But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (nineteen years ago) link
This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― edward o (edwardo), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (nineteen years ago) link
i'd rather not be KILLED
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (nineteen years ago) link
The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)
― don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (nineteen years ago) link
Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (nineteen years ago) link
But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― adam... (nordicskilla), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (nineteen years ago) link
― Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:41 (nineteen years ago) link
It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:43 (nineteen years ago) link
Ridiculous.
― Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:47 (nineteen years ago) link
I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.
― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:50 (nineteen years ago) link
the right to inform her deputies to put themselves at legal risk and not issue marriage licenses
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:18 (eight years ago) link
When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!
― Aimless, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:11 (eight years ago) link
like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.― Οὖτις, Friday, September 4, 2015 3:07 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
like, Scalia is right - if your beliefs interfere with doing your job, you shouldn't have that job. it's not your right to have that job.
― Οὖτις, Friday, September 4, 2015 3:07 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is... complicated? there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs." not to mention people working in a fundamentally unjust or murderous system, like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.
it's not davis's unwillingness to "do her job" that makes her wrong IMO, it's the nature of what she will and won't do. the biggest problem is simply that she cites her religious beliefs, nothing more or less, in rationalizing her unwillingness to perform her duties. that makes her stance conflict with what judges have, for a long time now, considered a basic principle of the rule of law.
but in any case this is all a sideshow. the more compelling fact, IMO, is how many state, county, and other officials--who may disagree with the supreme court ruling and/or may hold deep-seated prejudices against gays and lesbians--are going along with the ruling. they amount to a consensus, which the media focus on davis obscures. so really, we should be celebrating. (though i admit it's somehow both angering and deeply satisfying to contemplate the awesome ignorance of davis and those who have rallied to her.)
― wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:37 (eight years ago) link
there are plenty of whistleblowers at various levels of government who we'd applaud for "not doing their jobs."
I don't see how this is relevant or analogous, really
like nazi germany or, closer to home, america during either of the red scares.
Similarly these were regimes/instances of the gov't acting in an explicitly illegal manner, the rule of law had gone out the window (again, not the case here, much as Davis' supporters would suggest otherwise. There has been no coup, no agency acting beyond its legal bounds)
and I didn't say it was her unwillingness to do her job that makes her wrong, it's her insistence that it is simultaneously her right to HAVE that job AND not do it.
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:55 (eight years ago) link
but the Nuremberg Laws were, ah, the law!
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:57 (eight years ago) link
are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:59 (eight years ago) link
since the fucks at the supreme court gave these morons an inch with the hobby lobby decision
When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 10 September 2015 23:22 (eight years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:59 PM
No, because Chris Ciccone can explain it better.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 September 2015 00:33 (eight years ago) link
lol good luck with this guys:
http://freakoutnation.com/2015/09/more-derp-oathkeepers-on-their-way-to-protect-kim-davis-from-further-arrests/
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 11 September 2015 02:02 (eight years ago) link
Kim Davis basically now attempting to vanish in a puff of smoke after realizing a week later she didn't actually win. lol
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 22:31 (eight years ago) link
She staunchly asserted that marriage licenses not signed off by her personally are invalid, but if someone wanted to test that assertion in court, who would have standing to challenge the validity of the licenses?
― Aimless, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:33 (eight years ago) link
Jesus
― Οὖτις, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (eight years ago) link
her and her lawyers assert that. the judge in question and attorney general have politely said that claim is horseshit.
but essentially what it boils down is, her deputies are now issuing marriage certificates and they don't have her name on it. Isn't that what she wanted? Naw, she wanted no licenses going out at all, and just used the whole "oh my dear personal freedoms" as the excuse.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (eight years ago) link
lol
is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 21 September 2015 23:27 (eight years ago) link
Harris Wofford, eh?
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 25 April 2016 12:00 (eight years ago) link
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb
FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.
Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.
― j., Friday, 23 December 2016 02:51 (seven years ago) link
still taking applications btw
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 23 December 2016 03:43 (seven years ago) link
tough call, i don't get screeners anymore...
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Friday, 23 December 2016 03:46 (seven years ago) link
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to step into a case over a Texas high court ruling that says gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits.
― Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Monday, 4 December 2017 21:33 (six years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GsyAoWXScA
― mookieproof, Saturday, 27 June 2020 00:23 (three years ago) link
Four months without dick -- well.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 27 June 2020 00:38 (three years ago) link
i'd need to see a financial portfolio
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 27 June 2020 13:46 (three years ago) link
dark times
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 27 June 2020 15:21 (three years ago) link