Why would anyone want to get married in the eyes of the government anyways?
Family, friends, church sure - but government?
Makes no sense to me.
What does a piece of paper mean?
PROBLEMS! ha..
Nope, that is absolutely wrong.
The government doesn't grant me "legal relationship" when I want to date a woman. I don't have to ask the government first then sign a bunch of papers if I want to ask a lady out.
I did not say you did not, I said I cannot find argument from you supporting the decision.Sorry, I never said I didn't support it. I said the opposite. Read my posts in this thread again.
More straw from the horse, I never said anything of the sort.....and this is just a cheap way of avoiding the debate.You think a marriage certificate is the be all, end all of a happy union. I don't. We disagree. Isn't America grand?
Exactly. Which pretty much invalidates your next statement.How we define our relationships has nothing to do with this.
Your relationship hasn't changed. How the government treats your relationship hasn't changed. Women getting the right to vote did not end voting for men. It didn't take anything away from men. How the government defines someone else's relationship really doesn't affect you. So why do you get to decide that for someone else?It is how the government has redefined marriage that has ended an institution as it was originally defined.
Half the country disagreed with a lot of things. Things like women voting, or interracial marriage. They got over it.Half of this country does not agree with the new definition.
While I have no constitutional objection to this, I believe it is an inaccurate concession to a minority who believe they have sole ownership over that word. They do not. You do not own that word. You do not get to dictate that other people can't have that word associated with their relationship in the eyes of the government. Furthermore, this notion is completely disingenuous because nobody expressed this desire until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen. It's just trying to take your ball and go home.By states getting out of the marriage license business and switching everything to civil unions, it no longer defines any relationship only to the point for legal purposes.
Again, I'll ask: do you believe the state should be involved in civil contract, ie should the state protect the rights of individuals who create contract involving laws of the state?
But...you certainly need the govt to protect your rights in and of the marriage.I certainly don't need government to define marriage for me.
I certainly don't need government to define marriage for me.
Civil contract has NOTHING to do with civil liberties unless civil liberties were violated in which the contract would be void unless otherwise noted.
When your choices are to compromise your moral conscience or go hungry, I'd say that is being forced. But while you justify these accomdation laws that force people to compromise their moral conscience, how long will it be before you folks will be demanding your right to make a Catholic priest, a minister or clergy of any church affiliation or Rabbi or Cleric to marry same sex couples demanding it a right and claiming discrimination? I don't think it will be long. Probably in my lifetime. Maybe then people will wake up and decide it's time for the states to get out of the marriage license business.good thing they arent being forced, they have to play by the same rules has ALL OF US, you want them to get special treatment, no thanks
I did not mention "liberties". This is about whether the state can protect the contract rights of individuals.Civil contract has NOTHING to do with civil liberties ....
Tights for all!
My bad. I was referring to legal kinship. I apologize for mistyping that. It was meant as "legal kinship". Just as you need to prove legal kinship to others, you also need some way to prove it for your spouse. And enter marriage license/certificate, legal marriage.
When your choices are to compromise your moral conscience or go hungry, I'd say that is being forced. But while you justify these accomdation laws that force people to compromise their moral conscience, how long will it be before you folks will be demanding your right to make a Catholic priest, a minister or clergy of any church affiliation or Rabbi or Cleric to marry same sex couples demanding it a right and claiming discrimination? I don't think it will be long. Probably in my lifetime. Maybe then people will wake up and decide it's time for the states to get out of the marriage license business.
I did not mention "liberties". This is about whether the state can protect the contract rights of individuals.
You are going off on a tangent to avoid the question.
Exactly. Which pretty much invalidates your next statement.
Your relationship hasn't changed. How the government treats your relationship hasn't changed. Women getting the right to vote did not end voting for men. It didn't take anything away from men. How the government defines someone else's relationship really doesn't affect you. So why do you get to decide that for someone else?
Half the country disagreed with a lot of things. Things like women voting, or interracial marriage. They got over it.
While I have no constitutional objection to this, I believe it is an inaccurate concession to a minority who believe they have sole ownership over that word. They do not. You do not own that word. You do not get to dictate that other people can't have that word associated with their relationship in the eyes of the government. Furthermore, this notion is completely disingenuous because nobody expressed this desire until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen. It's just trying to take your ball and go home.
Maybe, but dammit I'm sick and tired of people being forced to compromise their moral conscience just to make a living. It's friggin wrong on so many counts. One can only hope that more and more states will pass protection laws for them.
I don't understand what you mean..
1.)When your choices are to compromise your moral conscience or go hungry, I'd say that is being forced.
2.) But while you justify these accomdation laws that force people to compromise their moral conscience
3.) how long will it be before you folks will be demanding your right to make a Catholic priest, a minister or clergy of any church affiliation or Rabbi or Cleric to marry same sex couples demanding it a right and claiming discrimination? I don't think it will be long. Probably in my lifetime. Maybe then people will wake up and decide it's time for the states to get out of the marriage license business.
Good since you have no constitutional objection to this, let's get the ball rolling! Civil unions for all!
Accommodation laws are not tied to marriage. A couple can have a wedding ceremony without actually getting married legally. Last I checked, no wedding service provider (with the exception of perhaps the officiant) will ask to see a copy of a couple's marriage license.
Let's wait to actually see a case where a couple, any couple, wins a suit against a clergy member for not performing their wedding, then we can talk about this. Until then, this is nothing but paranoia or fearmongering.
So even more laws, now to provide "special rights" to the religious or anyone that claims "moral conscience" and doesn't ant to service customers.
Don't want to serve blacks - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve Jews - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve gays - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve the elderly - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve women - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve veterans - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include veterans status in the Public Accommodation laws.)
Don't want to serve divorcees - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include marital status in the Public Accommodation laws.)
Don't want to perform the duties your employer pays you for - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (I do believe you have supported these special rights be incorporated into employment situations also so that employers can require their employees to do their jobs and not be fired for it.)
Adding MORE laws to control how MORE people can or cannot act is a very liberal idea. Not one I agree with. Here is a thought, instead of ADDING laws to give special rights to a group you agree with, how about instead we argue for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private business.
Instead of bigger more intrusive government, now about we repeal some laws. Allow individual freedom for both sides of the coin. Businesses get to refuse services to anyone for any reason, and customers get to share their experiences with their friends and the public. Let the marketplace decide if a business succeeds or fails. Let the business owner decide if an employee that refuses to perform their assigned tasks get to continue to receive a paycheck.
****************************************
See looking at it from a legal and logical perspective. The intent of the law, as we saw in the recent debacle in Arizona (SB 1062) was that businesses would be exempt from having to serve gays. However if the law was written specifically to only apply to gays, then it's unconstitutional (See Romer v. Evans when Colorado tried to target gays - it was struck as unconstitutional). On other other hand if you make the law very general - then anyone can claim that their personal religion or their personal moral objection applies. As SB 1062 said ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." There can't be a requirement that the individuals religious beliefs or "moral conscience" as you call it be part of an established religious dogma. Why you ask? The answer is that it would require the government then to approve or disapprove or religoius doctrine as valid or invalid. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is the government defining religious doctrine as valid or invalid.
>>>>
The hell they aren't! You are making people of faith ignore their moral conscience forcing them to perform services for same sex marriages which is something they find to be an abomination. Because if they don't they can go to jail, face financial ruin and lose their business. And yes if you can get away with that it isn't that far off with activist judges and a hatred on the left for people of faith whom you are already suppressing that you will soon be suppressing their places of worship forcing your discrimination BS on them too.
It depends on the contract/agreement...
I'm not going off on anything - you're making brash assumptions...
Why are you even talking civil law/litigation here? especially when you're attempting to argue for gay marriage. When that would be the worst route you could go legally?
You don't have support for this. When you do, come back and we'll debate it. Til then, it is a pipe dream to try to avoid having the government fully recognize same sex marriages. Nothing more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?