Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on May 15, 2008, 04:13:31 pm
-
Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story
republican justices that don't have their heads up their arses? it's a miracle!
-
Republicans aren't always staunch conservatives, you know.
-
the two tend to go hand in hand
-
the two tend to go hand in hand
Like being foaming-at-the-mouth socialist and Democratic does, right? Right?
I still maintain that the government should not be allowed to have any hand in anything labelled marriage, which is a religious institution, and the only thing they should be able to give out to anybody is a "civil union."
-
I still maintain that the government should not be allowed to have any hand in anything labelled marriage, which is a religious institution, and the only thing they should be able to give out to anybody is a "civil union."
i won't disagree with you there
the two tend to go hand in hand
Like being foaming-at-the-mouth socialist and Democratic does, right? Right?
because wanting to promote efficient and effective government programs that serve the people better than the private industry for less cost is totallly and completely irrational and evil
-
because wanting to promote efficient and effective government programs that serve the people better than the private industry for less cost is totallly and completely irrational and evil
Mmhmm. Clearly foaming at the mouth is lost upon you.
-
clearly your definition of "foaming at the mouth" is significantly different than mine
mine requires a lack of rational thought... which seems to me to be most people's definition
-
I still maintain that the government should not be allowed to have any hand in anything labelled marriage, which is a religious institution, and the only thing they should be able to give out to anybody is a "civil union."
So everybody should be required to get a civil union as well as a marriage in order to receive the legal benefits?
-
I think he means that all of the legal benefits of marriage should be included in a civil union, with marriage being an exclusively religious matter.
-
I think he means that all of the legal benefits of marriage should be included in a civil union, with marriage being an exclusively religious matter.
that's not what we were having a disagreement over
i agree with him there
-
I think he means that all of the legal benefits of marriage should be included in a civil union, with marriage being an exclusively religious matter.
Yeah but that's bollocks. It's arrogating to religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) a term which has been used for centuries by everyone.
-
I think he means that all of the legal benefits of marriage should be included in a civil union, with marriage being an exclusively religious matter.
Yeah but that's bollocks. It's arrogating to religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) a term which has been used for centuries by everyone.
it's true - but ALL "government marriages" (man-man, woman-woman, man-woman) being civil unions also sidesteps the issue all the fundies have because the confuse "government marriage" with "church marriage"
like in a thread i saw about this elsehwere - frothing at the mouth homophobic fundie ranting about how the state supreme court was forcing his church to marry gay people with this ruling.
dumbarse
-
Either marriage is a religious institution or it’s a state one. If it’s a religious institution, it shouldn’t confer legal rights. If it’s a state institution, it should be open to everyone. Simple as that.
-
the problem is we have both going by the same name at the same time and they're related to each other - religious people tend to get both at the same time
atheists like my wife and i just get the one (we had a unitarian perform a purely secular ceremony for us)
-
Like being foaming-at-the-mouth socialist and Democratic does, right? Right?
Comparing a staunch conservative to a nut-job liberal isn't exactly fair. The liberal equivalent of a staunch conservative (McCain) is a socialist democrat (Bill Clinton). The conservative equivalent to a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal (Nancy Pelosi) would be the soulless, heartless and downright hateful republican (Ann Coulter).
As for as civil union/marriage thing goes, I'm all for the long overdue separation of the two. There are many who wish to get married, but not have to deal with the attached strings of common liability. On the other hand, some people don't believe in marriage but still wish to have a common security. If the two are kept separate, it allows more choice, and in turn, liberties.
-
it's true - but ALL "government marriages" (man-man, woman-woman, man-woman) being civil unions also sidesteps the issue all the fundies have because the confuse "government marriage" with "church marriage"
like in a thread i saw about this elsehwere - frothing at the mouth homophobic fundie ranting about how the state supreme court was forcing his church to marry gay people with this ruling.
dumbarse
And in return for allowing that sort of person to not die an early death from a stress related disease you get to spend twice as long in Hallmark looking through a small selection of "Happy Civil Union" cards for a suitable one. :yes:
Simply not worth it is it?
-
Look at it this way. Civil union is a licensed civil status mandated by the state. Marriage is a private institution, meant solely for those involved.