Chisoxfn Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 He said, states should be free to have civil unions, not that he supported it. So don't expect much. Gay marriage isn't a moral issue. Not so much as any other equal rights issue. In most states, it is legal to fire gay people for being gay. Or suspected for being gay. In most states, equal housing laws do not apply to gay people. Gay marriage is a figleaf issue. It was not a priority of gay activist groups until the movement to outlaw the possibility was taken up by the right. I don't remember the conversation before then. Why would you do that? It's a reverse slippery slope. Nobody has a problem with making sure gay people can keep their job if the boss finds out he's gay. Nobody has a problem with making sure gay people can be expected to not be harassed by landlords and given fair and equal housing for being gay. Everyone has a problem with the magic word marriage. They feel threatened by it. But its not about marriage. Its about rights. And bigotry. Equal rights for equal people. Hey, I can't agree more with your statements. I see absolutely no reason why gay people can't get equal rights. If somehow something is on the ballot, as a republican I will vote to support civil unions and to support gays to be able to receive equal rights. In fact, if people can't be fired because of race or being handicapped, I see no reason for why they can be fired because they are gay. The only thing I differ in the gay issue is that I feel marriage is something between a man and a women. But I believe two gay people should be able to live with their partner and get every single benefit that a married couple gets. I think a civil union is just a different word for marriage, but it leaves marriage as something between a man and a women. Thats just my stance and I respect your opinion as always wino. Also, I didn't commend your comments in the thread where you talked about volunteering in the election and I want to say they were classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Most of these same sex marriage amendments banned civil unions too. I believe the Ohio one specifically barred giving any kind of equal right to gay couples in the state. That's not morality, that's bigotry. If the state wants to call it something different, that's fine by me. I think all civil marriages are really civil unions anyway. You get married in the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Well, if that were effected, if the rights & priviledges were made exactly the same, why not just call it marriage? If the institutions are legally identical, why go to all this trouble over exactly what word is used in the text of the law? Having a constitutional amendment over semantics is just a waste of time. It's not like many people are going to get all aflutter just b/c they see "marriage" used generally in Michigan Statute 551.271, instead of "marriage or civil union". Well as the numbers show...a LOT of people believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. I can take your argument and just switch one word and make the same argument... if the rights & priviledges were made exactly the same, why not just call it a civil union ? If the institutions are legally identical, why go to all this trouble over exactly what word is used in the text of the law? What I think is important are benefits, tax breaks etc... not which word is used to commemorate their commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 What I think is important are benefits, tax breaks etc... not which word is used to commemorate their commitment. Right, I agree. My point is, people spent time crafting these amendments and getting them put up as resolutions. Isn't that just a waste of time if there's no substantive difference whatsoever? What I'm getting at is that I think these amendments are about more than the use of one word or another. I don't think the authors and supporters of these amendments would have taken the time to change a word for aesthetic purposes. IMO they show that any "civil union" legislation has a snowball's chance of getting passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Right, I agree. My point is, people spent time crafting these amendments and getting them put up as resolutions. Isn't that just a waste of time if there's no substantive difference whatsoever? What I'm getting at is that I think these amendments are about more than the use of one word or another. I don't think the authors and supporters of these amendments would have taken the time to change a word for aesthetic purposes. IMO they show that any "civil union" legislation has a snowball's chance of getting passed. We'll agree to disagree. I didn't think it was a waste of time....it gave an inside look at the country's take as opposed to what we saw on the media a few months back. They took the time to show that the majority of people think a marriage should be between a man and a woman. On your second point...all I can say is I hope you're wrong. Only time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 With all due respect to ChiSoxyGirl, marriage is a flawed institution all around. We have a 50% divorce rate for a man and a woman. That includes all religions in all states. Who are we to judge when we can barely make marriage work half the time. Actually, marriage isn't about legal issues or social issues or religious issues...it's about the love of two people. And the fact that it's been debased and sunken to legal and religious arguments kinda makes me sick. Gay couples in civil unions or marriages should have the rights and priviliges of a heterosexual couple...hands down. But since we can end a marriage on "Irreconcilable Differences," we shouldn't have any right to tell anyone what makes a true marriage. Whew. I'm tired now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 With all due respect to ChiSoxyGirl, marriage is a flawed institution all around. We have a 50% divorce rate for a man and a woman. That includes all religions in all states. Who are we to judge when we can barely make marriage work half the time. Right, I'm not saying make divorce illegal. I'm just saying that in the Bible divorce get a lot more bad press than homosexual marriage--and if this attack on gay marriage was PURELY bible based then divorce would get coverage too. I'm saying that there is something else fueling this bad precedent we set than pure biblical religion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.