NYC say's "no way" to the queers!

[rtwngAvngr]

This whole thing is getting a little silly. I'm generally toward the "conservative" side. I would prefer them to have something similar if not exactly the same, just called something else, so that the union of man and woman still has a unique word, but on the other hand it's kind of silly to prepare two sets of all forms and adding checkboxes all over everything, just for this symbolic argument. I don't know anymore guys. I'm flummoxed.

 

[wonderwench]

Let religions deal with the religious aspects and let government deal with the legal/contractual nature of the relationships.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But what about that slippery slope that now polygamists will want to be protected? Why must it be limited to TWO people? We know we can change what words mean. We did it for gays.

Do you think this will come up, and is it valid?

 

[wonderwench]

That is a red herring. The law provides for two unrelated people to form a legally binding partnership. All that allowing civil unions for gays and lesbians does is to provide them equal protection under an existing legal construct. Polygamy is not protected under that definition, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm not a lawyer, but a contract between multiple entities sounds like an incredibly difficult thing to define, manage and enforce. Any attorneys in the house who can address if and how contracts can be done for more than two parties?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by wonderwench
That is a red herring. The law provides for two unrelated people to form a legally binding partnership. All that allowing civil unions for gays and lesbians does is to provide them equal protection under an existing legal construct. Polygamy is not protected under that definition, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm not a lawyer, but a contract between multiple entities sounds like an incredibly difficult thing to define, manage and enforce. Any attorneys in the house who can address if and how contracts can be done for more than two parties?

I was just getting ready to post that exact question. Freaky. What you just said is what I was thinking. Agreements of all kinds, civic especially, are between two parties. I agree with you now. I guess if our society loses respect for family, it won't really be because something was called a marriage and not a civil union.

 

[wonderwench]

I really dislike the concept of laws to promote personal moral values. Laws, by their very nature, set the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior. Philosophy / religion / value systems set much higher, aspirational standards. This is where family and community come in - especially family. The breakdown of the concept of family has come about because of the government intrusion into private lives and values.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I really dislike the concept of laws to promote personal moral values. Laws, by their very nature, set the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior. Philosophy / religion / value systems set much higher, aspirational standards. This is where family and community come in - especially family. The breakdown of the concept of family has come about because of the government intrusion into private lives and values.

I dislike that too.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I really dislike the concept of laws to promote personal moral values. Laws, by their very nature, set the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior. Philosophy / religion / value systems set much higher, aspirational standards. This is where family and community come in - especially family. The breakdown of the concept of family has come about because of the government intrusion into private lives and values.

The fact that all laws regulate morality make it irrelevant that you dislike laws which encourage a morality that you don't agree with.

The difference between polygamy and homosexual marriages is zilch. Squat. The same with incest. If homosexuals are allowed to marry because otherwise would mean that laws aren't being applied to them equally as to heterosexuals (which I dispute), than there is no difference in striking down anti-polygamy and incest laws. No legal rationale can be made for any law surrounding marriage- including age limits.

If there really is some constitutional problem with marriage laws, than tax laws should be struck down because they are applied in a non-uniform fashion, welfare should be stopped because the federal/state/local money isn't being spent on their citizens uniformly, prison sentences should not be different by crime committed because all people should be treated the exact same way, libraries/schools/community centers will be open to everyone regardless of where they live, etc.

Can't wait for all this to happen so that I, too, can be treated equally and get all my money back.

 

[wonderwench]

Only to you and others who wish to have the government deny equal protection to consenting adults who do different things than you care to do in the bedroom.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Only to you and others who wish to have the government deny equal protection to consenting adults who do different things than you care to do in the bedroom.

I said I was never going to say this again, but I'll do so one more time. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

I, as a straight male, cannot marry another man.
I, as a straight male, can marry a woman.

A gay man cannot marry another man.
A gay man can marry a woman.

A straight woman cannot marry another woman.
A straight woman can marry a man.

A gay woman cannot marry another woman.
A gay woman can marry a woman.

 

[wonderwench]

B'loney.

They do not have the right to form a legally binding union with the person they love and with whom they would like to be responsible.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
B'loney.

They do not have the right to form a legally binding union with the person they love and with whom they would like to be responsible.

Sure they can. Visit their local lawyers office. He'll draw up a legally binding contract for them both to sign.

Otherwise the rights are identical and that cannot be disputed.

 

[wonderwench]

That is not equal protection. Having to hire a lawyer to draw up a contract places an undo burden to protect rights which others can ensure via a simple marriage license.

Do you think women should have to go to a lawyer to draw up a voter registration contract? Should blacks have to hire an attorney to develop a driver's license application?

Placing extra burdens on a select group of citizens to exercise rights enjoyed by others is not equal protection.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
That is not equal protection. Having to hire a lawyer to draw up a contract places an undo burden to protect rights which others can ensure via a simple marriage license.

Do you think women should have to go to a lawyer to draw up a voter registration contract? Should blacks have to hire an attorney to develop a driver's license application?

Placing extra burdens on a select group of citizens to exercise rights enjoyed by others is not equal protection.

What the hell does any of those examples have to do with 'protection'? They simply have legal avenues at their disposal to get what they want. If they want to be just like heterosexuals then they should start being with the opposite sex for their relationships.

 

[wonderwench]

It has everything to do with it. When some members of society are singled out to go through a materially different process in terms of effort and expense, then the law is not being applied in an equitable fashion.

A more extreme example: should naturalized citizens be charged a $5,000 poll tax in order to vote?

Having an attorney draw up a customized contract is expensive and an undo burden. A simple civil union certificate which defines sharing of income, assets, debt and liabilities is all that is required - and could easily be offered similar to a marriage license.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by wonderwench
That is not equal protection. Having to hire a lawyer to draw up a contract places an undo burden to protect rights which others can ensure via a simple marriage license.

Do you think women should have to go to a lawyer to draw up a voter registration contract? Should blacks have to hire an attorney to develop a driver's license application?

Placing extra burdens on a select group of citizens to exercise rights enjoyed by others is not equal protection.

It is because of their behavior that that the simple marriage license is not open to them not because they are being denied their rights.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
It has everything to do with it. When some members of society are singled out to go through a materially different process in terms of effort and expense, then the law is not being applied in an equitable fashion.

This happens every day with athletes, job applicants, college applicants, those who need lawyers to defend themselves. It's naive to think everyone will have equal consideration all the time.

A more extreme example: should naturalized citizens be charged a $5,000 poll tax in order to vote?

I don't know about $5k, but I wouldn't oppose a plan to institute a small fee.

Having an attorney draw up a customized contract is expensive and an undo burden. A simple civil union certificate which defines sharing of income, assets, debt and liabilities is all that is required - and could easily be offered similar to a marriage license.

As long as they stay away from 'marriage, that's fine. You see, that's not enough for the queers though. They are going to keep pushing the marriage issue regardless. Quite a few even stated that civil unions just aren't good enough. They make their claims of what it is they want but then say they don't want it, they want to be 'married'. This isn't as much about rights and protections as it is a message to society that they want to be treated the same as everyone else in society on all levels. It's just simply not going to happen.

 

[wonderwench]

You are confusing litigation and compensation arrangements which are situationally specific with the general rights protected under family law.

I don't give a hoot about the definition of marriage. Let religions deal with that. The governments role is to make and enforce law. In this case, it is civil union contract law.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench

A more extreme example: should naturalized citizens be charged a $5,000 poll tax in order to vote?

Maybe not. But the constitution says they can't be president. What more perfect example of the fallacy of equal protection meaning the same thing as exact same rights, rules and regulations.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I don't give a hoot about the definition of marriage. Let religions deal with that. The governments role is to make and enforce law. In this case, it is civil union contract law.

That's where the problem lies, the queers do! They aren't stopping with civil unions, even though it will give them what they profess to desire. The good thing is that the more they push the more people are pushing back. You are slowly starting to see states change their laws to protect against activist judges. The states will hopefully decide this issue and grant civil unions and define marriage as between one man and one woman. Should that get out of hand then a constitutional amendment will be necessary.

My point is that what they claim they want doesn't equal what they are asking. Civil unions will give them everything they're asking for. Why shouldn't that be good enough?