Bush finally concerned about Bin Laden.

[This_person]

...all Cali has to do is just give them a marriage license and, viola.

Applying for a Marriage License in California

Or, they fill out the form applicable to their circumstances, and, voila!


Edit: Info here on potential results of case

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Segregated America

Or, they fill out the form applicable to their circumstances, and, voila!

This sounds just like...

Black people can fill out the job application that is applicable to their circumstance for working as a janitor instead of working as an accountant and viola!

:shrug:

It's that attitude that kept the evils of segregation alive for so long.

For a Christian, you sure are intolerant.

 

[This_person]

This sounds just like...



:shrug:

It's that attitude that kept the evils of segregation alive for so long.

For a Christian, you sure are intolerant.

How does that sound alike? It's not even close, Ellen. A civil union that provides all of the same rights, but is called more appropriately what it is, is actually equal. No one's talking about lowering pay, or job status, or denying rights, or anything else. No one's talking about segregating anyone. How is it in any way alike?

And, what does my religious view have to do with anything?

And, of what am I intolerant - changing the definition of words for no good reason? I guess I'm guilty of that. I'm not a car, I'm a human. A civil union is not a marriage, it's a civil union. A marriage, however, may be a civil union. Maybe that's the best way to handle it - call everything a civil union?

 

[Ken King]

How does that sound alike? It's not even close, Ellen. A civil union that provides all of the same rights, but is called more appropriately what it is, is actually equal. No one's talking about lowering pay, or job status, or denying rights, or anything else. No one's talking about segregating anyone. How is it in any way alike?

Question, you say no right would be denied, okay for the sake of argument, let's say a same-sex couple marries, one works and pays into Social Security, the other doesn't. Now if the working partner dies will the other receive the survivors benefits the same as what would be provided a heterosexual spouse?

 

[This_person]

Question, you say no right would be denied, okay for the sake of argument, let's say a same-sex couple marries, one works and pays into Social Security, the other doesn't. Now if the working partner dies will the other receive the survivors benefits the same as what would be provided a heterosexual spouse?

I did not draft nor read what the domestic partnership civil union was in the matter of the California case; however, it is my contention that if two people of the same sex entered into a civil union, it would include ALL of the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage.

Or, in short, yes, I think they should have the same legal rights that a married couple would.

 

[Xaquin44]

damn Andy

he called you 'Ellen'

LOOK OUT FOR THIS GUY!

He just finds the idea repulsive and wants the law to reflect his bigotry.

nothing new here in other words.

 

[Ken King]

I did not draft nor read what the domestic partnership civil union was in the matter of the California case; however, it is my contention that if two people of the same sex entered into a civil union, it would include ALL of the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage.

Or, in short, yes, I think they should have the same legal rights that a married couple would.

Even though the DOMA says that marriage, a prerequisite for the survivor benefit, is only between a man and a woman. How do you think the SSA would view the following statement "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."?

 

[This_person]

Even though the DOMA says that marriage, a prerequisite for the survivor benefit, is only between a man and a woman. How do you think the SSA would view the following statement "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."?

I'm no lawyer, but it would be my contention that there are conflicts with the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution. I already agreed on that, and I'm not trying to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

That being said, I also think there is a conflict with having a Dept of Education and the Constitution, the Social Security Act and the Constitution......

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Or, they fill out the form applicable to their circumstances, and, voila!


Edit: Info here on potential results of case

...from your link;

In so doing, the California Supreme Court disregarded the will of the people of California as expressed by 61 percent of the voters, who in 2000 passed an initiative defining marriage as involving one man and one woman. Now, it’s true that in constitutional systems of government, the will of the majority is not supreme if it is contrary to the constitution. But here there is not a grand and undefined right of marriage in the constitution. Rather, the court finds that amorphous right in prior activist rulings concerning substantive due process. And so the decision is activism building upon activism. Little wonder the court felt it necessary to include that initial caveat about its proper role

But there is a grand, defined right to equal protection in addition to laws regarding licensing and state to state recognition.

 

[This_person]

...from your link;



But there is a grand, defined right to equal protection in addition to laws regarding licensing and state to state recognition.

As noted at least twice above, I agree. I just don't think the word "marriage" is the same as equal protection. I think a status of equal protection is equal protection. I think a fishing licence to hunt is dumb, and marriage license to two people of the same sex is equally dumb. However, a hunting license let's you kill animals, and a fishing license lets you kill fish. A marriage license lets two people of opposite sex marry, and a civil union lets two people of the same sex have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

 

[This_person]

damn Andy

he called you 'Ellen'

LOOK OUT FOR THIS GUY!

He just finds the idea repulsive and wants the law to reflect his bigotry.

nothing new here in other words.

I called Andy "Ellen" because she attempted to make the same pointless, invalid argument.

What I find homosexuality to be is not the question, nor accurately described by your words. I want the law to reflect equality, and accuracy, not bigotry.


You're wrong.


Nothing new here, in other words.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

As noted at least twice above, I agree. I just don't think the word "marriage" is the same as equal protection. I think a status of equal protection is equal protection. I think a fishing licence to hunt is dumb, and marriage license to two people of the same sex is equally dumb. However, a hunting license let's you kill animals, and a fishing license lets you kill fish. A marriage license lets two people of opposite sex marry, and a civil union lets two people of the same sex have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

...I could care less about the whole subject other than the law and I think if states long ago said "Sure, you morons wanna get married, have it it" there wouldn't be a queer from here to the moon that would wanna do something so straight. Having said that, if they wanna marry, they gotta get a license. They go down and are refused. So, that's begging for a showdown and it's a showdown that was bound, to me, to go only one way.

Watch and see what happens with this referendum. I'll be surprised if Californians still want marriage to be defined as a man and a woman. People's reactions are usually different from their considered responses.

 

[This_person]

...I could care less about the whole subject other than the law and I think if states long ago said "Sure, you morons wanna get married, have it it" there wouldn't be a queer from here to the moon that would wanna do something so straight. Having said that, if they wanna marry, they gotta get a license. They go down and are refused. So, that's begging for a showdown and it's a showdown that was bound, to me, to go only one way.

Watch and see what happens with this referendum. I'll be surprised if Californians still want marriage to be defined as a man and a woman. People's reactions are usually different from their considered responses.

They actually chose it beforehand. That's why the law was there as it was. As you read in the article, it's likely to go against the wishes of the minority (the homosexual rights population). By fighting the way they did, they're likely to have harmed their own cause.

They were refused the license for something that didn't apply to their situation. Had they asked for all of the same rights and responsibilities of a marriage license, only one that applied to their situation (the domestic partnership/civil union thing), there would be no problem, and everyone would be considered equally.

 

[Larry Gude]

I understand...

They actually chose it beforehand. That's why the law was there as it was. As you read in the article, it's likely to go against the wishes of the minority (the homosexual rights population). By fighting the way they did, they're likely to have harmed their own cause. .

...that and I did read that. I'm calling that the reaction and we'll see this fall when they have a chance to think it over.

 

[This_person]

...that and I did read that. I'm calling that the reaction and we'll see this fall when they have a chance to think it over.

Fair enough!