Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

Only if you try to deny me rights because my name is different from yours.

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

I understand the point, a legal union having all the rights and obligations of a traditional marriage, but with a different name. I personally always thought that would be a good compromise, but for that to be a viable alternative, there would have to be movement very soon. Politically, it may already be too late for that. If Gays are obliged to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to have their rights recognized, they will accept nothing less than full equality.

In Canada, our former liberal government had legalised same- sex marriage after losing a series of court cases, all using the same reasoning as the U.S. cases I mentioned previously. When the Conservatives came in, they toyed with the idea of creating a separate " civil union", but finally gave up since it did not make sense to get into a major political fight over a name.

[geetrue]

Isn't marriage between a man and a woman just a way to make co-habitation legal?

You now have the right to lay with your mate with a legal paper and legal status if the marriage doesn't work out they can terimate the marriage dividing property as the state they live in has already agreed to, which is 50% in California.

If this is so and I believe it is ... then all the gays really want is to do is make what they do legal.

Retirement pay and other US government restrictions to gay partners has already been lifted from what I understand. They can kiss each other upon returning from an overseas deployment in front of cameras without fear of pushiment.

Now they have someone from the white house, for the first time, on their side.

Just like North Carolina had someone, Billy Graham, on their side to defeat the gay marriage bill.

It's like black and white to me ... both sides have people in high places on their side.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

Ok let's say they do that. Gays can have their civil unions. But here's the kicker - since separate but equal has been found to be inherently unequal, they tell all married people, ok in the interest of equality, you're not married anymore...we now consider you a Civil Union and you still have all the rights and benefits, but you're just not legally "married" anymore. Can you imagine the crapstorm that would stir up?

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

So you're denying them the right to get married.

It used to be that black people had the right to ride the bus, as long as they sat in the back. They had the right to ride the bus, but for some reason, they had a problem with it. It shouldn't matter, as long as they can still ride the bus, right?

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

So you're denying them the right to get married.

It used to be that black people had the right to ride the bus, as long as they sat in the back. They had the right to ride the bus, but for some reason, they had a problem with it. It shouldn't matter, as long as they can still ride the bus, right?

I'm not denying them anything.

You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not denying them anything.

You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.

There doesn't need to be a practical difference for it to be unequal. If you're tired of everyone saying your "separate but equal" argument is inherently unequal, perhaps you should re-think it instead of stubbornly clinging to it.

To look at it from the other side, the only way I can see that it would possibly not apply is that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification under federal law...it'd be hard to draw a direct parallel from a case regarding race (Brown v. BOE or Loving vs. Virginia) which is a protected class, to sexual orientation, which isn't. As soon as the courts recognize sexual orientation as a protected suspect class, you'll see the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage in short order.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.

If there is no practical difference then why insist on a different name?

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If there is no practical difference then why insist on a different name?

Because it involves a different combination of gender.

Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?

[antikristuseke]

Efficiency.

It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the state what the gender of the married people is, to the state all it should be was a contract by which joint property etc. is divided, among other things. As far as the state is concerned marriage is no more than a legal contract.

Thats the way it should be anyway, at least in my opinion.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the state

If you had stopped with the above quote, I could have agreed in full. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Because it involves a different combination of gender.

Which means exactly nothing. The contract is the same; the distinction is artificial.

Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?

Because there is no reason to. The combinations only mean something to people who don't like them. You're trying to make the words fit your bias.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Which means exactly nothing. The contract is the same; the distinction is artificial.

I'm sorry Steve but I disagree. Gender is not an artificial distinction.

Because there is no reason to. The combinations only mean something to people who don't like them. You're trying to make the words fit your bias.

No reason? Obviously a whole lot of people disagree with you or it wouldn't be the huge issue that it is. As for making words fit your bias, I could say the same thing about you. You only think combinations don't mean anything because you support the other side.