|
California's Same Sex Marriage Ban (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
| quote: | | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot IMO the best solution is for government to abolish all marriages and have civil unions for all (for taxation purposes and such). When you fill out your taxes, you're either in a civil union or you're single. There shouldn't be a checkbox for "marriage" in the first place. The application process and rights granted would be the same for any two people, regardless of sex and such. Let the churchies do whatever they want if they wanna glorify their unions through whatever god-pleasing rituals they deem appropriate. That doesn't bother me at all. |
And this is where I think homosexuals and religious folk can agree. Government should have no business getting involved in 'marriage' and view ALL partnerships as a civil union in order to dole out all the rights and tax-breaks that a 'married' couple currently have under the law.
Once government is out of the picture, then people can feel free to argue til they're blue in the face about whether or not a 'married' gay couple is ACTUALLY married or just using the word to describe their union, but it won't matter because EVERY 'union' will carry the same legal rights. |
|
|
| chw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I don't understand how it got put on the ballot in the first place. Wasn't it a supreme court decision? |
from what i understand, the supreme court ruled in favour based on the current law. they ruled essentially that there was no legal basis to ban it.
so the state put a vote on the ballot to change the law that the supreme court based their ruling on. democracy at work... |
|
|
| jsibilin |
ban marriage and ban religion!!!!!!!
yes my reasoning sucks! do i care... no |
|
|
| love_child |
| quote: | Originally posted by jsibilin
ban marriage and ban religion!!!!!!!
yes my reasoning sucks! do i care... no |
but thats not fair chinamon cares :sadgreen: |
|
|
| jsibilin |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
but thats not fair chinamon cares :sadgreen: |
religion only causes problems..
marriages...more then 50% end up in separation!
nothing's fair in life.. get over it china ! |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| Don't live there, don't care |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
And this is where I think homosexuals and religious folk can agree. Government should have no business getting involved in 'marriage' and view ALL partnerships as a civil union in order to dole out all the rights and tax-breaks that a 'married' couple currently have under the law.
Once government is out of the picture, then people can feel free to argue til they're blue in the face about whether or not a 'married' gay couple is ACTUALLY married or just using the word to describe their union, but it won't matter because EVERY 'union' will carry the same legal rights. |
I absolutely agree with you and DJ Elyot. Let CUs been the basic formal standard that determines rights, etc. between ppl who want join their lives together formally. Let the church decide ON TOP OF THAT if said CU will constitute a marriage (ie. the religuous equivalent) too. If so, great for those who want it (ie. those religiously inclined).
Then everyone receives same treatment therefore by the state/government. That's the way it should be.
Civil unions FTW. Relgious marriages FTL. ;) |
|
|
| MarkT |
I'm fine with whatever puts everyone on equal ground with respect to the law and the state.
whether that means legalizing marriage for homosexual couples, while protecting the rights of religious organizations or whether it means the state getting out of the "marriage" business and leaving it as a religious sacrament, but requiring civil unions for everyone...I could care less.
the point is to avoid a "same, but different" scenario under the law.
common law doesn't cut it and civil unions will require rewriting all kinds of law, just as an FYI.
a big example is property law. you're either a spouse or you're not. common law means NOTHING in property law. therefore, if a gay couple can't be legally married, they do not enjoy the same rights under property law as a married hetero couple. that is simply unacceptable.
therefore, there needs to be some movement. either the state extends marriage to everyone...or it gets out of the marriage biz, leaving that as a religious status, and creates a new legal status of a civil union, requiring EVERYONE be registered as such to enjoy the legal rights and obligations that go with it. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by chw
from what i understand, the supreme court ruled in favour based on the current law. they ruled essentially that there was no legal basis to ban it.
so the state put a vote on the ballot to change the law that the supreme court based their ruling on. democracy at work... |
Yeah, I guess I just don't understand how the state can essentially call a referendum on an issue that was previously ruled on by the supreme court.
What's next, Roe v. Wade? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Yeah, I guess I just don't understand how the state can essentially call a referendum on an issue that was previously ruled on by the supreme court.
What's next, Roe v. Wade? |
oh, there will be impending challenges to Roe vs. Wade...no question. I would be that we'll see a major challenge within Obama's first term in office. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
oh, there will be impending challenges to Roe vs. Wade...no question. I would be that we'll see a major challenge within Obama's first term in office. |
From Obama? If it has been left alone during Bush, why would that change now?
America makes my head hurt. I don't care how many of you live there, your priorities (as a nation) are so.absolutely.mindboggling. Some days I really can't believe it is the "superpower" of the world given how ing ancient the views of so many of its citizens are. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
From Obama? If it has been left alone during Bush, why would that change now?
America makes my head hurt. I don't care how many of you live there, your priorities (as a nation) are so.absolutely.mindboggling. Some days I really can't believe it is the "superpower" of the world given how ing ancient the views of so many of its citizens are. |
no, not because of him...just using his term as a time reference. |
|
|
|
|
