Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books.
This is not true.
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (fifteen years ago) link
Bullshit that they said it or bullshit that they meant it?
Because yes it's some horseshit, but the fact that they made it a talking point tells ya which way the wind's blowing.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, if they'd meant it, they would have written civil unions into the prop
― the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:27 (fifteen years ago) link
Bullshit that they meant it, and 77% bullshit that they said it.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (fifteen years ago) link
And civil unions are some Jim Crow shit anyway.
^^^disagree
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (fifteen years ago) link
Basically, when Oregon passed the measure, it was to prevent lawsuits from being tried. The Att'y General had said, as I recall, that he didn't think the argument (that not allowing gay marriage was a form of sex discrimination, which was prohibited in the state constitution) would be valid; but it's kinda hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, which is one reason why there was the push to put language specifically outlawing it in the state constitution.
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:29 (fifteen years ago) link
fair
xp
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:29 (fifteen years ago) link
we went over this on the election thread - basically the end-goal should be to separate the religious institution of marriage from the civil rights accorded married people by the government so that EVERYONE gets the same recognition under the law (same visitation rights, same healthcare benefits, etc.)
x-post
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:30 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp
― the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:30 (fifteen years ago) link
I have even managed to get some Republicans I know to admit that marriage is a religious ceremony and the State should recognize nothing other than civil unions, though they still, sometimes quite sincerely I believe, keep bringing up the polygamy canard.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:31 (fifteen years ago) link
all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:32 (fifteen years ago) link
Then why aren't Mormons pro-gay marriage, if it'll lead to legalized polygamy?
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (fifteen years ago) link
But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (fifteen years ago) link
As I've said elsewhere, why would a devout Catholic want his/her state to call and recognize as a marriage, a union, even between a man and a woman, where one of them is divorced and therefor, according to the Church, an adulterer?
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (fifteen years ago) link
Shakey, couldn't the Feds just define all civil unions as marriages wrt the tax code?
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:35 (fifteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:32 PM Bookmarkcivil unions 4 everyone
― the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (fifteen years ago) link
Bcz polygamy is a commandment we are not godly enough to follow as it currently stands, and will happen again after Armaggedon. Duh.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (fifteen years ago) link
its not the same because the law only deals with the former and would basically be disregarding the latter entirely
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (fifteen years ago) link
civil unions 4 everyone
exactly
but it doesn'txp
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:37 (fifteen years ago) link
If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing, which it does, then civil unions are still second class.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (fifteen years ago) link
that sounds pretty "equal but separate
Weddings I have been to have been widely different but the underlying law remains the same.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (fifteen years ago) link
We have to destroy marriage in order to save it.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (fifteen years ago) link
The right wing no marriage but civil unions are okay position is just about keeping language as a placeholder.
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link
look the LAW is the central thing here, what anybody calls it (marriage, civil union, whatever) doesn't fucking matter. The end-goal is the guarantee of equal legal treatment of everyone who's made a formal commitment to a legally recognized relationship.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link
Not exactly. Leave marriage to religion and civil unions to a secular state that treats people as equal under the law.
xxpost
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:40 (fifteen years ago) link
If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing,
you cannot legislate "public connotations". It is outside the bounds of civil jurisdiction.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
I see I hold a minority opinion.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
you guys know how laws work, right?
what about recognition across state lines?
― Maria, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
I would like to pass an amendment that states that if a marriage is defined by law as a sacred union between a man and a woman, they must then all occur in churches.
Basically, in their zeal to "protect" marriage, these people are destroying it, and I want to help them reach their logical conclusion so that everyone is fucked (ie, equality in the other direction).
― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
haha!
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:42 (fifteen years ago) link
The deal is that EVERY marriage has a civil component. SOME marriages get the special gloss of a religious component, but that is not required for a marriage to be a marriage.
― Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:43 (fifteen years ago) link
well put
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:44 (fifteen years ago) link
It's not as if Xtians have not at times been exhorted to render unto Caesar what is his and just do their own shit. They had no huge problem with saying mass in a person's home when Xtianity was illegal under the Romans. If their faith tells them that they are, indeed, married via a sacrament tot heir spouse, what difference does it make whether a majority calls them married or not? In that case, let us have equality for all under the common law and if it requires an amendment that says that religious institutions cannot be forced to wed people who they disapprove of, so be it.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:45 (fifteen years ago) link
(One could argue that traditional marriage was destroyed once it become just as easy to divorce, but that's for another thread.)
― HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:45 (fifteen years ago) link
(Oh no, I think that is an excellent point and one I would also like to hammer home; divorce is now illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Possibly stoning.)
― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:47 (fifteen years ago) link
It's absolutely the truth, though, mackro.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:47 (fifteen years ago) link
to go back to the civil rights analogy - it is possible to legislate against racially discriminatory practices, but it is not possible to outlaw racism. Similarly it is possible to legislate equality before the law for gay couples, but it is not possible to outlaw homophobia.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:48 (fifteen years ago) link
is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:48 (fifteen years ago) link
It is ludicrous to define as protecting marriage an amendment which limits the number of people who can consider it as an option , epecially since they're not 'in the market' for any of the people whose marriage is being protected, or at least only the people in the closet.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:49 (fifteen years ago) link
let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that... what M. White and myself and Dan (in a more humorous way) are arguing is that equal treatment is the key thing and that since the government's domain is a CIVIL one, then everyone should have civil unions. "Marriage" would be rendered an essentially ceremonial term.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:53 (fifteen years ago) link
(btw what's the difference between the Euro countries with civil unions and those with marriages? Is there no "Equal Protection" clause in the EU?)
Or, if it's too much work to search and replace all the laws and stuff, everyone gets plain old marriage under the law and religious folks get covenant marriage or sacramental marriage or ultraviolet sunbeams of the divine light marriage.
― Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:56 (fifteen years ago) link
they don't offer full rights, although in the UK and Sweden they just have a different name, which I find almost more sinister.
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:57 (fifteen years ago) link
Is it equal protection we're talking about or some equivalent to 'full faith and credit'?
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:58 (fifteen years ago) link
I'd say both the 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit clause are relevant. But I ain't a lawyer, I'm just a backwoods hyperchicken
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:01 (fifteen years ago) link
How they compare to the EU founding docs and whatnot is hard to figure out, especially since they generally have Roman/Napoleonic law and have only one Common Law state.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:04 (fifteen years ago) link