Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

Here is a sign from one of the protests...

A very good question indeed.

 

[Lighthouse]

What is the difference between a marriage and civil union? I'm genuinely asking, because I don't know.

 

[StorminNorman]

Personally I find it to be a constitutional issue about rights that should be nation wide, but you're right state by state some would have worked and some not. But with something like this until it's nationally accepted it's not a complete win.

This is an issue that is going to be a state by state issue.

Just a bit touchy of an issue if you're not black. There have been jews and blacks in the past that have actually supported neo nazis and the KKK respectively but that's pretty much the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure some slave owners treated people decently, but I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule as well. I was just saying that's an extremely inflamatory point which has a damn fine chance to rile people up rather than encourage any time of reasonable debate. I would say a lot of those people did so cause they had no where else to go and no support structure was in place to help them.

If a black poster had a poster with my statement then I would refer them to historical texts. I mean should a German find it insulting if I said Germany slaughtered millions? Being insulted by history seems rather stupid.

I'm not black, and I'm going to guess you're not either, but some might find that idea being floated by a white guy pretty offensive.

Quite frankly I don't give a damn. If someone wants to be offended, they will find a way to be.

Very confusing, as in what the **** does a yes vote mean confusing.

It wasn't simple in the slightest.

Wording has a great deal to do with it, if you confuse people they can't vote correctly. I had two friends that actually voted against equal rights because they messed up. Was it their fault ultimately, yes it was, but the bill was piss poorly worded I think most people recognize that.

Ehh...still not sure I buy it.

Baby steps, my man, baby steps. All debate is good for common sense. Every time it's brought up in the news people shift ever so slightly to seeing how wrong it is to deny legal standing based on who you are.

I really just don't see coverage leading to a subtle shift in favor of gay marriage. I hope you are right, I really do - I just don't see it.

No, you're right and if a marriage was simply a religious standing I would agree there is no right to it. But as a marriage holds type specific legal standings to both individuals, to deny any group that is unconstitutional.

If it was truly that simple there would be no controversy.

Hey, me too. But even if you're completely right, that's the beauty with this country, you can always keep coming back and trying again till you get it right.

Very true.

No, it can't be won in the courts, but that's where all equal rights fights have to start.

It's been true for every group and it's true for gays as well. The courts rule in logic, the people protest based on emotions and try and overturn the decission. Fights and debate takes over. Eventually the people come around. Then everyone gets a beer and chills the **** out. God bless America.

Let's hope this is right.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm a little bewildered by the gay marriage controversy. What is the exact thing everyone is fighting for or against? I'm a person who believes that marriage itself is a pretty silly and outdated institution. The only point I see in it is of legal benefits through taxes, property, custody etc, etc. That's why I ask what the difference is between civil unions and marriage, because if the rights are exactly the same, then I'm not sure what the fighting is over. If they aren't the same, then I understand and would support the gay community on it.

 

[Schlosser85]

If the rights are exactly the same, why is one called a "civil union" and the other is called a marriage? Would civil unions be good enough for heterosexuals? And if they're not, why should they be good enough for homosexuals?

 

[CaptainClown]

I believe Civil Unions have a lil more paperwork and require the individuals to be both within the United States and citizens and blah blah blah blah there are a lot of minor differences, but mostly they are all cons

 

[Lighthouse]

If the rights are exactly the same, why is one called a "civil union" and the other is called a marriage? Would civil unions be good enough for heterosexuals? And if they're not, why should they be good enough for homosexuals?

In legal terms, all types of marriage contracts should be called civil unions, and marriage should be a matter of ones own private religions.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That worked so well in California. When courts FORCE gay marriage on a state, there is always backlash. That backlash NEVER helps the gay community. You are confusing with temporary success to actual achievement.



If Prop 8 wasn't defeated you would have a point. But Prop 8 WAS successful, after a public and well known debate. You can't FORCE tolerance on people and trying to do so rarely helps your cause.



But this ISN'T a real step forward. All this is going to do is bring up another Constitutional Amendment that will succeed and show that Iowa doesn't want Gay Marriage.

Real change comes from people changing their perception of homosexual Americans, judges can't offer it.

that's extremely debatable... because the fact prop 8 was "successful" it actually woke alot of us up, and pissed us off. Sometimes you need a disaster to wake people up and get the train moving. Prop 8 woke a beast, and i guarantee you it will get even bigger if prop 8 is upheld after the CA supreme court deals with it.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

on the topic of civil union vs marriage, there's also alot of power in the word alone. Technically you're not "married" you have a "domestic partner" and all together that's kind of psychologically disconcerting as well. After all, like many women, many gay men since they were little have planned what there wedding might be like... (i have, and i know several others have), and the fact we've grown up hearing "marriage", and "married" all our lives, wanting that every day... and the fact there's never been one logical argument against that really makes someone feel like were not "good enough" so even with the differences of legalities between the 2, the word alone means alot as is.

 

[wiegeabo]

Speaking about the comment that this is a state issue:

I agree that for the short-term, this is going to be a state-by-state thing. And there's a chance that every state will take a position one way or the other.

But probably before that happens, there's going to be a lawsuit. Gay couples in one 'legal' state are going to sue on 'illegal' state where gay marriage is into recognized. The reason being this essentially bars the couples from living in those states without giving up the rights they enjoy. I see a class action suit against one or multiple states over the issue.

And a suit between the citizens of a State, and another State are the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. And that means the Court will likely have to decide if all States must recognize gay marriages performed in other States, or if homosexuals get equal (marriage) rights.

 

[Lighthouse]

on the topic of civil union vs marriage, there's also alot of power in the word alone. Technically you're not "married" you have a "domestic partner" and all together that's kind of psychologically disconcerting as well. After all, like many women, many gay men since they were little have planned what there wedding might be like... (i have, and i know several others have), and the fact we've grown up hearing "marriage", and "married" all our lives, wanting that every day... and the fact there's never been one logical argument against that really makes someone feel like were not "good enough" so even with the differences of legalities between the 2, the word alone means alot as is.

I just don't think the word alone is worth fighting for. Besides the rights issues, is there anything really important about being married legally? Can't you, gay or straight, get married in your own private ceremony in your own church through your own religion and just not give a **** about what the government thinks? Like I've said before, I think marriage as a government institution is pretty damn silly, and would be fine if all joined couples, heterosexual or homosexual, were called civil unions and the rights pertaining to taxes, property, custody etc. etc. were the same for everyone of them. Leave the "marriage" stuff for the church.

 

[Marx]

REPUBLICAN WARNS OF 'GAY MARRIAGE MECCA'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/republican-warns-of-gay-marriage-mecca/

Iowa Rep. Steve King condemned his state Supreme Court's Friday decision to lifta decade-long ban on same-sex marriage, saying it puts the state in danger of becoming a "gay marriage Mecca."

"This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends," King said in statement. "Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/iowa.same.sex/index.html?iref=newssearch
"Now it is the Iowa legislature's responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa," he added. "Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court's latest experiment in social engineering."

The state's highest court determined Friday that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement.

 

[Logan's Runt]

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 3, 6:05 pm ET
DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

t: Hell yes!

 

[StorminNorman]

that's extremely debatable... because the fact prop 8 was "successful" it actually woke alot of us up, and pissed us off. Sometimes you need a disaster to wake people up and get the train moving. Prop 8 woke a beast, and i guarantee you it will get even bigger if prop 8 is upheld after the CA supreme court deals with it.

You may be right, but I have seen nothing to indicate it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Yays for Gays!

 

[Carcharodon]

IOWA??????

 

[Logan's Runt]

I know!! We're not so backwards afterall.

 

[BatMatt]

Good work by Iowa, I was very proud of my state when Connecticut legalized it as well.

 

[E-Man]

I agree with this. I understand that being gay is unnatural, and all that other stuff. I'm a pretty spiritual guy who prays everyday to God. But I understand that my beliefs aren't everyone's beliefs. So more power to them for getting this done.

 

[Kurosawa]

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

THIS. Is why the fury from the far right to ban same-sex marriage is stupid. There is no reason other than complete homophobia for it to be anything but legal.

 

[xisaacx]

in my opinion, if you pay taxes you should be able to do what you want and ****k who you want. Gays pay taxes, so if they wanna **** some *** let them do it or if they wanna **** some **** who cares. Take care of a real issue, like illegal immigrants

 

[Drakon]

Step in the right direction!

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

in my opinion, if you pay taxes you should be able to do what you want and ****k who you want. Gays pay taxes, so if they wanna **** some *** let them do it or if they wanna **** some **** who cares. Take care of a real issue, like illegal immigrants

You have me trying to figure out which expletives you used here.

 

[Go Web Go!]

If my cousin takes any sudden trips to Iowa, I'll know why.

 

[Drakon]

That'll be a fun Thanksgiving.