|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted March 02, 2004 11:37 AM |
|
|
what do you think about this?
Open an ability for anyone to be issued a connection license that only lasts for 2 years initialy.
It is
A: eaily extended
B: Minor funding for more administration personel and offices.
C: Available to any 2 beings who merely want the same property ties married people do.
D: Easily altered. The standard form is hardly used because any specifications are clearly changeable.
It is merely a cotract.
But you want sanction of the words same sex marrige?
Why?
I also think PDA (public display of affection) should be violations of laws set to maintain an effeciant society. For those of same sex, PDA is available at your types of places. But not at our grocery store and Mc donalds! or buses trains, planes, and straight bars
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 03, 2004 02:57 AM |
|
|
Great. Why don't we sit at the back of the bus, and work in your cotton fields.....see where I'm going with this? 
The only reason I DON'T show PDA's in my town is because Belfast is too full of bigots. If I could I would, and no fascist law would change that.
And please, I'm hardly going to start groping another guy in the middle of the street, that's crude. Would you grope a girl in the grocery store?
But if you can't handle two guys or girls walking down the street holding hands then there's a simple solution.
Just don't look.
P.S. Congrats to Concis on the sprite! You breeders rock!
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted March 03, 2004 04:53 AM |
|
|
Yes a contract about equal 50-50 share.
Even if the women persuades the rights to take everythang you own of thier own value when they divorce ya  .
They also need to pop on one knee LOOOL & beg to be married  .
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
taintedlover
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted March 15, 2004 04:24 PM |
|
|
What is the matter with all you so called 'straight' men? are you so insecure in you're own sexuality that you have to waste you're time worrying about other peoples lives?
Why does it bother you so much? how does it effect you're lives in any way?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 15, 2004 08:09 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Aug 2004
|
Wha.....?
Are you asking how sexuality affects peoples' lives? That is debatable but what is certain is that it has a great impact on everyone's life.
Date: August 05, 2004
Missouri has voted. The storm is coming...
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted August 06, 2004 02:50 AM |
|
|
How dull can you be Tainted, whats wrong with talking about a topic.
You seem to have a problem with straight people yes no?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 06, 2004 05:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Date: August 05, 2004
Missouri has voted. The storm is coming...
It's always sad when democracy is used by a majority to oppress a minority by giving them fewer or worse rights. I guess its very hard for some people to learn from history. Why cant we just let everyone be born equal, like the US constitution says? The right to marry is an important part of a happy life. Don't deny someone that just because it makes you feel religious.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 06, 2004 05:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Great. Why don't we sit at the back of the bus, and work in your cotton fields.....see where I'm going with this?
LMAO u hit the head of the nail there  Seems history repeats itself over and over as long as there are stupid religious people to fear people that are different.
|
|
Pirahna
Famous Hero
or not ...
|
|
posted August 09, 2004 01:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry?[/qoute]
Well , no ! ... The main purpose of marriage is procreation ... and i don't think homosexuals can do that ...
____________
The Pirahna - wow guys ... my posts keep decreasing ... lol ... i can't post
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted August 09, 2004 06:24 AM |
|
|
you want to get married .
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 12, 2004 08:17 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 12 Aug 2004
|
Terms Of Agreement(I should think)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html
What's in a vote?
I know my reasons for disagreeing. I've stated them clearly and concisely. But what it all comes down to is a vote by rightful citizens of a democratic country. This is a vote that I very much agree with and support.
This is not to say that I am against certain inalienable constitutional rights of close friends, relatives, etc. As for the joining of two same sex people for the purpose of matrimony, let's simply call it what it justly is, a possible "civil union".
I refuse to accept that people of the same sex can enter into the same kind of relationship that I have with my wife. It is different ergo it should not be referred to as the same representation thereof.
As for the question of what to call this relationship, I am open to suggestion. Thus far "civil union" sounds appropriate but I am not set on this as of yet. In the case that people of the same sex engaging in such a relationship feel it to be offensive then we should of course review it until a suitable replacement term can be agreed upon.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted August 12, 2004 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I refuse to accept that people of the same sex can enter into the same kind of relationship that I have with my wife. It is different ergo it should not be referred to as the same representation thereof.
I don't really see how it can be so different. Care to explain?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2004 12:50 AM |
|
|
"I refuse to accept that people of black skin color can enter into the same kind of relationship that I have with my wife."
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted August 13, 2004 02:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But what it all comes down to is a vote by rightful citizens of a democratic country.
Oh, is that so? If a democratic country votes to take away certain rights black people have is that OK?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 14, 2004 09:21 PM |
|
|
Consis, Svarog is probably right about this. Issues of Civil Rights and the laws spawned by the movement are designed to protect the minorities against the majority. If the majority of people in this country were KKK or sympathetic to the oppression of African Americans, as they once were, then the movement would never have successfully extinguished the Jim Crow laws.
The majority vote can only prevail if the resulting law does not fall in violation of the constitutional protections at the base of the legal system.
The question is: does denying homosexuals the right to marry violate the Constitution? My instincts tell me that it should, but I cannot actually find a provision such a denial directly violates.
Any help from any of you would be welcome on this question.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 16, 2004 12:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The question is: does denying homosexuals the right to marry violate the Constitution? My instincts tell me that it should, but I cannot actually find a provision such a denial directly violates.
Amendment XIV:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Certain legal privileges and protections come with being married. Denying these privileges and protections to one group (homosexuals) is unconstitutional. George Bush knows this, which is why he is trying to change the constitution.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted August 16, 2004 02:58 AM |
|
|
It's the fear & the experience they hear from others that Homosexual marrieage is that bad.
It's like a sin to them.
It's different & thats why Bush wants it banned, he thinks it's the devils people.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 16, 2004 04:28 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 15 Aug 2004
|
Clarification Is Needed
bort is correct in that George Bush is violating the constitution with his attempt to amend it in the way he has done thus far. I agree to this subjection.
However if you will notice, it clearly states "without due process of law". I believe, that homosexuals deserve all the rights, priviledges, and protections afforded marriages but not under the same label. It is a different institution that homosexuals seek to enter into therefore I believe it should be called a different name. I am thus far satisfied with the term "civil union" as a suitable replacement term.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted August 19, 2004 09:07 PM |
|
|
With the help of Title 18 of the United States Code, the Legal Information Institute, and my rather rusty memory, here’s my two cents’ worth on the current status of this debate.
A Primer on Equal Protection and Same Sex Marriage
There are two ways a person might be discriminated against in the U.S. The first is to have a law applied to him or her differently simply because of her minority status. The second is to be denied a fundamental right that is secured to everyone under the Constitution and laws.
equal protection: an overview
"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances…
"Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. “
(quoted from Legal Information Institute: overview to equal protection)
1. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CLASS MEMBERSHIP
18 U.S.C. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both…"
It is important, however, to realize that not all minority classes are protected undet the constitution ans laws of the United States. They must be one of the classifications identified as deserving of equal protection.
For instance, obesity and homeliness are not classes recognized under any current federal of state classification of individuals provided equal protect protection under the law. In other words, a person can be fired because (s)he is fat and ugly, but not because (s)he is Black, Indian or (fe)male.
"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference.”
(quoted from Legal Information Institute: overview to civil rights)
In addition, there are various levels of scrutiny a law addressing a given classification of individuals must pass before the law may found to be unconstitutional. For instance, laws that set forth different treatment of individuals because of their race or national origin are automatically “suspect classifications” and are thus “strictly scrutinized” by reviewing courts. There must be some "compelling state interest" for the law to exist or it will be found unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Otherwise, reviewing courts must find the law in question constitutional if there is any “rational basis to a legitimate state purpose.” So for instance, if the police force requires its applicant to be under the age of forty, the court may find there is a rational basis for this requirement due to the health demands of police officers. The legitimate state purpose is to assure that police officers are not elderly and unable to perform the rigors of law enforcement. Therefore, such a law might not be found discriminatory on the basis of age.
Homosexual individuals are not currently recognized under federal laws as a protected class, let alone a suspect one. Many local governments (including my own) do, however, recognize sexual orientation as a protected class under the local laws, making it unlawful to discriminate against them without any rational basis for doing so.
However, the federal list of protected classes has gradually grown over the decades to recognize and include discrimination against more and more classes of individuals. The most recent additions are, I believe, statutes protecting employment rights and public access rights for the elderly and the disabled.
Thus, while always an extremely difficult and long legal battle, it is not impossible to make a case and seek amendment of the existing statutes, or create a new statute to add sexual orientation as a protected class.
2. DISCRIMINATION THROUGH DEPRIVATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
"The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel..."
(quoted from Legal Information Institute: overview to equal protection)
Therefore, the question in this debate could hinge on whether the right to marry (or to engage in a familial union with one's partner) is a “fundamental right” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court has considered the following to be “fundamental rights” in past cases: first amendment rights, the right to engage in interstate travel, to vote, to receive due process prior to deprivation of personal liberty, to “privacy” which includes some rights to freedom of choice in sexual matters, and to freedom of choice in marriage.
This in turn returns us to the same issue: the conservative coalition’s attempts to get “marriage” defined as “a union between a man and a woman.” If Bush succeeds in his attempts to amend the U.S. constitution to so define marriage, then some might fear that their right to engage in a marriage union with their same-sex partner has been categorically destroyed as a "fundamental right." I believe this may be at the heart of the fear behind calling gay unions anything other than “marriages.” Since a “civil union” is not something historically recognized in this culture, the fundamental rights argument appears impacted.
However, I believe that insisting on calling it "marriage" may be the main obstacle preventing us from doing this the easy way -- by creating a federal statute that at once acknowledges the civil union and provides all the same protections to gay unions that are currently afforded to heterosexual ones in their marriages. If the statute is created, then we need not seek protected status for gays in order to secure the right. The right is secured in the statute.
This way at least many of the more conservative minds who find application of this term so unbiblical, socially unacceptable, offfensive or otherwise annoying might be appeased, while the gay population achieves the same result it seeks, with the exception of a single word.
If there is some matter other than the one of principle that prevents the homosexual community from using a different term to establsih the same rights, then I would like to hear what that real-life difference is. Otherwise I would argue that we are getting just as hung up on a mere term as the right-ringers are, and are just as guilty as they are of entrenching and refusing to be reasonable. (By "we" I mean homosexuals and their supporters.)
Any thoughts on my take here?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 19, 2004 10:09 PM |
|
|
Same rights, different title?
Doesn't that sound a bit like separate but equal?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
