Obama vs. Beantown

[One Brow]

Can you translate this for me?

Sardony-free version:

Separate institutions mean separate rights, at least potentially. For example, if one type of domexstic partnership is called "marriage", and another type is called "civil union", then there is the potential for legally saying that, for example, two members of a marriage are next-of-kin, but not two members of a civil union. Even if they are set up the same initially, the legislature could change that down the line. On the other hand, if both types of partnerships are marriages, it becomes more difficult to make them different accidentally, and it is more obvious when done purposefully.

Your notion that the primary concern in seeking to have the same institution is whether people will look at them as normal is a typical anti-marriage formulation, seemingly designed to mask a real concern and frame the issue in a way that puts the focus on the people who are anti-marriage and how things affect them.

 

[moevillini]

Bean (and anyone else)

You have said that you support "civil unions" for partners of the same sex. Speaking strictly in the legal sense as far as property rights, tax laws, family laws and whatever other areas of statute may be involved, does this mean that you would support a "civil union" that is 100% the equal to what is now called "marriage" - in other words, if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation and replaced with "civil union" would you be in favor of this type of relationship for both same and different sex partners?

I'm just trying to figure out where it is that the line in the sand is drawn on this issue for you.

Moe, why do you believe homosexuals are so concerned with the term "marriage" if they recieve the exact same legal benefits through civil unions?

Part of it is because of the fact that the idea of a "civil union" has no legal standing at present on a federal level, the only "legal" relationship is marriage, and it is legally defined as between a man and a woman. Until the legal definition is changed, it is an issue because it serves to separate "marriage" from "civil union" on a legal basis, as well as on a societal level.

So as it stands right now, it is impossible for a "civil union" to be equal to "marriage"

Also, just from stuff I've read in the past, I know that there are differences of opinion on this issue. Some gays would be more willing to accept the idea of civil unions for same sex couples and marriage for opposite sex couples than others. Some take a more hard-line, militant stance - - others are more willing to compromise on some of these issues.

If I have a chance, I'll try to find some links.

 

[moevillini]

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Defense of Marriage Act - passed by Congress in 1996

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law....

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress' power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex "marriage."...

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex...

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

for instance, the US Tax Code limits the ability to file a joint federal tax return to those who are "married" as defined by Federal law, which thus limits it to heterosexual couples. Same sex couples, even those joined in "civil unions" where legally recognized, are not considered "married" under federal law and thus are not able to file a joint tax return.

In some sense, the use of devices such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" can guarantee homosexual couples have some of the same rights and privileges as married couples (such as the eligibility for health insurance benefits on a family plan) but certainly not equal rights and benefits. And as long as there is a legal difference between these various types of pairings, they cannot be equal. My guess is that once the legal differences were completely removed, there would be far less dissension on this issue.

Also, Bean, for all of your huffing and puffing about reproduction, your definition as it applies in reality is based upon looks and nothing more. A man who has had a vasectomy is no more capable of impregnating a woman than another woman would be. Yet just by looking at him and determining that he has the correct parts, you would be willing to give him rights that you would deny to someone else.

(that particular horse has been beaten to death on numerous occasions - - he seems to have more lives than Morris the cat!)

 

[Bronco70]

One Brow - How would you feel about dissolving "marriage" as civil terminology, and the gov't recognizing ALL domestic partnerships as CIVIL UNIONs? Marriage could be the province of churches - whatever church. Much like baptism. Fair, right?

 

[NAOS]

I nominate this thread to be locked unless Bean answers the personal questions I asked earlier today. Until then all these incoherencies in his thinking will just be the arbitrary and irrational statements that Bean is proclaiming. If we get some solid background to these assumptions maybe we can all learn something and stop banging our head against a Beanwall.

 

[Hopper]

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Defense of Marriage Act - passed by Congress in 1996

The gay judge in San Francisco just held, indirectly, that congress' passage of this law is "unconstitutional," eh, Mo? And Eric wants (or at least wanted) to argue that there are no "pragmatic" concerns with respect to the judge's rulin. Go figure, eh?

 

[Gameface]

I nominate this thread to be locked unless Bean answers the personal questions I asked earlier today. Until then all these incoherencies in his thinking will just be the arbitrary and irrational statements that Bean is proclaiming. If we get some solid background to these assumptions maybe we can all learn something and stop banging our head against a Beanwall.

You may want more background on Beantown, but most of us are not only familiar with who Beantown is, we have also heard his arguments on this issue in what seems like a half-dozen 20+ page debates on homosexuality. You're new to the party. Take a deep breath and stick around, you'll find out more about Beantown then you care to know.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

One Brow - How would you feel about dissolving "marriage" as civil terminology, and the gov't recognizing ALL domestic partnerships as CIVIL UNIONs? Marriage could be the province of churches - whatever church. Much like baptism. Fair, right?

I think your idea to make marriage now only available to RELIGIOUS people instead of everyone is fabulous! I've seen you post this quite a few times, and although some hateful atheists responded, you defiantly stood strong with your position of love: take away the rights of not only homosexuals, but non-religious as well.

You're a pretty smart dood.

-Craig

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I can answer this. They are so desperate to be looked at as normal, and feel equal that they think forcing their way into the one phrase that has defined heterosexual bonds for years will give them what they want. Sadly, I think they are mistaken. Being able to use a word will not change what or who they are.

High five Marcus! Homosexuals can never change what they are. They're gross. I think if Jesus were here today, he would take your loving position as well.

-Craig

PS. By the way, I noticed that the anti-gay side has the three most smart people on the board: Beantown, Marcus, and Clutch 2819. Coincidence, no?

 

[Scat]

High five Marcus! Homosexuals can never change what they are. They're gross. I think if Jesus were here today, he would take your loving position as well.

-Craig

PS. By the way, I noticed that the anti-gay side has the three most smart people on the board: Beantown, Marcus, and Clutch 2819. Coincidence, no?

Who said I was anti-gay?

 

[NAOS]

High five Marcus! Homosexuals can never change what they are. They're gross. I think if Jesus were here today, he would take your loving position as well.

-Craig

PS. By the way, I noticed that the anti-gay side has the three most smart people on the board: Beantown, Marcus, and Clutch 2819. Coincidence, no?

Does anybody else have the suspicion that this guy and Hopper are the same "dood"?

 

[NAOS]

You may want more background on Beantown, but most of us are not only familiar with who Beantown is, we have also heard his arguments on this issue in what seems like a half-dozen 20+ page debates on homosexuality. You're new to the party. Take a deep breath and stick around, you'll find out more about Beantown then you care to know.

you may be correct about this, but I think this information is crucial to the stalemate that we've reached.