• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How is banning civil-unions constitutional? (1 Viewer)

unknownsoldierX

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Please, no religious comments. I am speaking only about constitutional rights.

I am a true believer in separation of church and state. I'm not religious, but I believe the religious establishments have the right to ban marriage as recognized by the Church.

People that don't understand the concept of “separation of church and state” may not realize this, but the government should not delegate whether the Church can allow or disallow gay marriage. Also, how can the government say that homosexuals don't have the right to be legal partners in a civil-union?

Would someone point out where in the Constitution it says only a man and women may be legally recognized as partners?
 
There's no Constitutional right to marriage or to civil unions-- and the State does not have to "ban" civil unions so much as simply refuse to recognize them.

Civil unions, like legally-sanctioned marriage, are a State institution and are therefore conferred at the State's prerogative. They're under no Constitutional obligation to confer them in any fashion other than as they see fit-- with the noted exception of not discriminating based on a set list of criteria that do not yet include sexual orientation.
 
Why is it that only homosexual political fascists think their brand of perversion is the only sexual perversion that should be allowed?
 
Why is it that only homosexual political fascists think their brand of perversion is the only sexual perversion that should be allowed?

What the hell are you talking about?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
with the noted exception of not discriminating based on a set list of criteria that do not yet include sexual orientation.

its incorrect to say that baning gay discrimination against homosexuals, sinse homosexuals actually are allowed to marry. its really sexual discrimination. your sex determains who you may or may not marry, and that is protected by the 14th amendment.

the rest of your post is right on the mark though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom