Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Redfish]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

 

[Faun]

If they satisfy all Constitutional questions involved and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most Americans, then why not say something about them?

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

Don't be ridiculous, of course they're not the same. If they were the same in function, they would be the same in name. For example, a couple in a civil union cannot file their taxes jointly, like a married couple can. And there are other benefits for married couples not afforded to civil union couples.

There is simply no legal reason whatsoever to deny gay people the same right to marry the person they love while straight people are privy to that very right.

They are not the same and there is no constitutional reason

 

[Unkotare]

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

Don't be ridiculous, of course they're not the same. If they were the same in function, they would be the same in name. For example, a couple in a civil union cannot file their taxes jointly, like a married couple can. And there are other benefits for married couples not afforded to civil union couples.

Ok, craft a civil union that includes those benefits. Problem solved.

 

[Faun]

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Because it's not marriage. It doesn't have all the same legal rights. If it did, it would be called, "marriage," not "civil union."

 

[Redfish]

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Because it's not marriage. It doesn't have all the same legal rights. If it did, it would be called, "marriage," not "civil union."

a gay civil union should grant a gay couple the exact same rights as a man/woman marriage. Is that what you want? or are you like most gays and libs in that the debate is not about equality but about a word?

 

[Faun]

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

but it won't, the dialog from the gays and libs on this message board verify that the whole issue is that they insist on using the word marriage. its not about equality, its about the word.

That's absolutely correct. Gays should have access to exactly the rights as straights. They should be allowed to marry the person of their choice just the same as a straight person can.

And I'm still waiting for an answer ... do you think the Constitution provides equal protection for gays so that they can "marry" the person they want to, regardless of gender? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer?

 

[Unkotare]

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Because it's not marriage. It doesn't have all the same legal rights. If it did, it would be called, "marriage," not "civil union."

Craft a civil union that does have all the same legal rights. All even-steven, but it is designated "civil union" as differentiated - in name only for all practical purposes - from "marriage." Happy now?

 

[Redfish]

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

do you include the groups of bigamists and polygamists in that generalization? if not, why do you insist on discriminating against them?

waiting for your answer faun

 

[bodecea]

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

 

[Faun]

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

do you include the groups of bigamists and polygamists in that generalization? if not, why do you insist on discriminating against them?

I've already explained that ... gay marriage, in my opinion, is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on gender ... there is no such gender based discrimination against polygamy.

 

[bodecea]

Because it doesn't satisfy them.

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

but it won't, the dialog from the gays and libs on this message board verify that the whole issue is that they insist on using the word marriage. its not about equality, its about the word.

Show where ANY gay organizations protested against or file suit against states using the term "civil union".

The ONLY ones trying to stop " civil unions" are Red states. That is a fact.

 

[Faun]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

Arguing the absurd is not helping your argument.

 

[bodecea]

Individual marriages are not public schools, lodgings, restaurants, or essential business. Every marriage is separate, as would be every Civil Union. They would satisfy the protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

do you include the groups of bigamists and polygamists in that generalization? if not, why do you insist on discriminating against them?

Your concern for bigamists and polygomists is touching. Are we to assume you will fight just as hard for gay couples?

 

[Unkotare]

How the hell is telling one group of people they can marry while telling another group they cannot, equal protection??

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

 

[Redfish]

Sure it does. If a civil union granted all the privileges and associated legal standing of a traditional marriage, with the only significant difference being the name "marriage," then they would most certainly satisfy them.

but it won't, the dialog from the gays and libs on this message board verify that the whole issue is that they insist on using the word marriage. its not about equality, its about the word.

That's absolutely correct. Gays should have access to exactly the rights as straights. They should be allowed to marry the person of their choice just the same as a straight person can.

And I'm still waiting for an answer ... do you think the Constitution provides equal protection for gays so that they can "marry" the person they want to, regardless of gender? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer?

I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as man/woman couples. the word "marry" does not do that. A legal civil union would.

I wish you would admit that your real agenda is to force the country to accept homosexuality as normal and equally acceptable as biological heterosexuality.

trouble is, its not and never will be. homosexuality is a perversion, whether it is chosen or genetic does not matter.

 

[bodecea]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

Answer this one for us. What is it particular to legal gay marriage that opens the door for bigamy and polygamy......that isn't ALREADY an open door due to legal straight marriage?

 

[Faun]

If a civil union granted all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, then how the hell does it not?

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

 

[Redfish]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

Arguing the absurd is not helping your argument.

its not the least bit absurd. the ACLU would have a field day with it, and SCOTUS would have the gay marriage precedent and could not rule against them.

I hate to use the slippery slope analogy here, but it applies.

 

[Redfish]

the real issue with gay marriage is where it logically and legally leads.

If man/man and woman/woman marriage is permitted then there is no legal or logical defense that can be presented to deny bigamy and polygamy.

Answer this one for us. What is it particular to legal gay marriage that opens the door for bigamy and polygamy......that isn't ALREADY an open door due to legal straight marriage?

OMG, are you really that dumb?

 

[Unkotare]

Fine...all civil marriages can be called civil unions....just religious unions can be called marriage......and let's take the time to change all the statutes, laws, etc to reflect the term "civil union", replacing the word "marriage" on all civil documents.

Nope. Traditional marriages would still be designated as always, with same-sex contracts of a similar nature officially labeled "civil union." All the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?

How about opposite-sex couples be restricted to civil unions while same-sex couples be allowed to marry? That way, Conservatives can still be equal but separate from gays.

Sorry, you got here a little too late. The traditional understanding of marriage is by now long-established. But remember, all the same rights and protections guaranteed under law. Satisfied?