- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,775
- Reaction score
- 21,436
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
they can be...by the govt. why do they insist on forcing the church to recognize them?
The right for equal protection under the law is in the constitution
The right to not have a word defined in a way you don't like isn't
However "valid" state interest is more in line with the bottom tier of the epc not the middle. Something can be valid while not being important.
The government routinely acts against the will of the people. Just in recent years you have the Iraq war, push for amnesty, not going single payer, not getting rid of Obamacare, not raising taxes on the rich, and I can go on. Furthermore, our system of government is distinctly set up to NOT focus on the will of the people. If that was an important state interest we'd be a direct democracy. However we are a representative Republic and therefore the will of the people is not directly what's important for then states interest.
So that nutshell is rather hollow
Those two statements are interesting. So on one hand, whether or not gays get married doesn't have any affect on your life (in other words, no harm), but you're against it because it offends your religious sensibilities. Therefore, because you and other religious people are offended by gay marriage, it should be illegal.
So should religious fervent dictate public policy?
Simple answer is that they're not. And the gov't for the most part hasn't done so.
Those two statements are interesting. So on one hand, whether or not gays get married doesn't have any affect on your life (in other words, no harm), but you're against it because it offends your religious sensibilities. Therefore, because you and other religious people are offended by gay marriage, it should be illegal.
So should religious fervent dictate public policy?
they can be...by the govt. why do they insist on forcing the church to recognize them?
really? then why do they insist on "MARRIAGE" instead of a civil union that is equivalent in every legal respect? why is it so important that their unions be called "marriages"???
really? then why do they insist on "MARRIAGE" instead of a civil union that is equivalent in every legal respect? why is it so important that their unions be called "marriages"???
yes it is, too bad that some people think that protection is limited to gays
you mean like having marriage defined as being between one man and one woman? yeah that definition really pisses the gays off
Not buying it. Becuase the will of the people may be violated....even routinely...doesn't make it not a valid interest. Prohibition comes to mind. Anything can be enacted, whether or not it survives depends on the will of the people.
It's not an IMPORTANT interested. If it was the "will of the people" would decide law. It absolutely does not. The will of the people is not required to be followed by any politician, nor does it directly make law 99% of the time.
Something that almost never happens, ie the will of the people making law, can not be considered an IMPORTANT interest
For those who favor civil unions for gays:
basically, you're essentially saying "I have support gay marriage, I just don't want to call it that." You guys know how absolutely stupid that argument sounds? What's in a name, really?
Dictate, no. Influence..certainly.
I view it more as a situation like if a family member is choosing to do something you really disapprove of.
Like let's say your daughter is dropping out of college to be a stripper. You think it's dumb and morally wrong, and youre not going to support her decision with emotional or financial support.....but that doesn't mean if she does it youre going to stop loving her.
They oppose it on religious grounds and due to their personnel beliefs actively supporting it is a bad thing to do and thus won't do it. They also realize however it has little real affect on their lives, so while they won't actively support it theyre not going to make a big stink about it.
Similar as well to someone who doesnt drink, doesn't like alcohol, doesn't like bars because a family member died from alcohol poisoning. They're not going to sign a petition to allow their dry neighborhood main street to have a bar erected. But they can always just not go to the bar if it happens, so if it happens they aren't going to care a lot to get up in arms about it. But they're not going to help it come to pass.
I think it's entirely reasonable even if I disagree with them
Most people just want to live their lives in peace, how they choose, without interference.
I see what you're saying and it makes sense. However, it's frustrating to me when people want to "influence" how others choose to live even though they have no stake in it at all. The example you gave about having a daughter who is doing something I strongly disapprove of isn't in the same league as a stranger making decisions I wouldn't approve of. And those against gay marriage admit that it causes no harm to them or to society. Therefore, their only reason to disapprove of gay marriage, and even vote against it, is based on religious ideology.
My point is that religion and government don't mix.
If there was nothing in a name, why oppose it?
refer to post 959 - Also, because I'm generally in favor of calling things what they are.
I disagree that it almost never happens. Many laws are enacted through and due to the will of the people....like every civil rights law....like the endeavor to legalize SSM.....DUI, drinking age, explicit lyrics, ffs......that alone shoots your argument down.
what is a Civil Union?
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?
How about if a teacher was having sex with students at your kids school....but it wasn't your kid. Would you oppose that? Or, how about kids were having sex in your kids school....but not your kid. How about that?
what is a Civil Union?
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?