Hawaii's governor vetoes same-sex civil unions, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 7-7-2010 @ 05:11 PM by JohnPhoenix

reply to post by name pending

You cannot compare this to civil rights. Gay people are not an entire race of people.

What's next.. special laws for Bowlers? How about Panda bear lovers?

reply posted on 7-7-2010 @ 05:37 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Tell me what kind of special rights do I possess?

I've been telling you but you are ignoring it.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that
are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation
of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.1 In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.2

www.gao.gov...

If you don't get special rights and privileges, then why does the US General Acounting Office think so and reported them to Congress?

If you think for one second that marriage is a special right or privilege then I really do feel sorry for you.

Feel sorry all you want. It does not change reality.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Nutter]

reply posted on 7-7-2010 @ 06:15 PM by Dilligaf28

The issue of Gay Marriage is often volatile and extensively debatable in most circles. What we must first realize is that marriage is not an invention of Christianity; while the Christian Wedding Ceremony has existed for a good deal of time it is not the original form of marriage. Various religions around the world have their own matrimonial customs some of which vary greatly from the Christian marriage so often spoken of on this thread. Some religions, even some sects of Christianity, promote polygamy, arranged marriages, and other marriage ideals outside of what the mainstream identifies as marriage in the United States.

That being said we must remember that the United States Constitution forbids the intermixing of religion and government affairs. With that in mind we must recognize that the Christian viewpoint of marriage or of homosexuals cannot be the basis for law in this nation; nor can any other dogmatic viewpoint provide for influence on law in this country. A theological doctrine cannot be transcribed into law as to do so would blatantly violate the freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore the argument of "Adam and Even not Adam and Steve" is moot in this discussion.

I do think the governor of Hawaii intended that this issue be voted on by the citizenry of Hawaii. I appreciate her statement that this is to big of a decision for so few to make and I will applaud her should she bring this issue to a statewide referendum. The Constitution does not enumerate the entirety of our rights as citizens. It was written to restrict government to certain roles and does outline certain rights the government cannot legislate against. Whatever is not mentioned as a power or limit upon the federal government is left to the states to legislate as stated in the tenth amendment. Therefore it is indeed up to the states to decide what the parameters of a valid marriage are as long as this legislation does not have a theological base as the Constitution prohibits such actions.

Having said this it becomes clear that to deny two individuals of a right to a union and the ensuing societal and governmental benefits based upon anything other than their mutual desire to form that union is discrimination. Two like minded individuals wishing to form a bond between themselves should be recognized by government despite their race, gender, or any other physical/psychological factors. To do otherwise is discrimination by any definition of the word.

As to those whom would say marriage imparts no specific benefits that cannot be gained outside of marriage I would like to point out something called Tenancy of the Entirety.

A type of concurrent estate in real property held by a Husband and Wife whereby each owns the undivided whole of the property, coupled with the Right of Survivorship, so that upon the death of one, the survivor is entitled to the decedent's share.

A Tenancy by the Entirety allows spouses to own property together as a single legal entity. Under a tenancy by the entirety, creditors of an individual spouse may not attach and sell the interest of a debtor spouse: only creditors of the couple may attach and sell the interest in the property owned by tenancy by the entirety.

Source

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 12:10 AM by zappafan1

So, Hawaii has more sense than Iowa. There are no gay rights. We have the rights in the Bill of Rights and that's it. Of course, there's no right to or any law allowing an abortion, either. I'm tired of homosexuals trying to make it sound like what they do is "normal." Being Gay used to mean happy and carefree. Now it's nothing more than doing the bone dance with Mr. sphincter.

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 01:21 AM by 23refugee

Opinions vary.

Frank Zappa: Some people miss the joke. In general, I was a convenient enemy and they could get exposure for their causes by coming after me. But I'm not antigay. When Ross Perot announced he was running for president, I wanted him to choose Barney Frank as a vice-presidential candidate. He is one of the most impressive guys in Congress. He is a great model for young gay men.
In Playboy, May 2, 1993

[edit on 8-7-2010 by 23refugee]

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 01:50 AM by RRokkyy

Originally posted by LibertyLover

And I'm still waiting for a good explanation from one of the religious wackos as to just exactly how letting my lesbian cousin marry her partner is going to have a negative impact on my heterosexual marriage to my husband.

They will breed more of them.
Michael Jackson
gary and tony have a baby.
Its already happening.
Homosexuality should by nature be self extinguishing.
That may be the ultimate perversion.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by RRokkyy]

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 02:50 AM by Chronogoblin

I am wondering why people keep confusing the terms 'civil usnion' and 'marraige.'

So you don't want the gays to get married... so they'll call them civil unions instead.

Cool?

"NO?!"

What? Why?

"Cause it sounds too much like really REAL marraige..."

Are you kidding me? You people really need to realize that just because your religion supposedly says that homosexuality is a 'sin' doesn't mean that everyone beleives the same as you, nor does it give you the right to dictate to others based upon your beleif.

Chrono

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Chronogoblin]

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 07:29 AM by Sheol

While the world is taking a step forward Hawaii has taken step backward. What a sad state of affairs from a country which is supposed to be a shining light of freedom and democracy to all other countries. One of the reasons why religion and politics should be kept separate.

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 12:06 PM by centurion1211

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Nutter

No one is placed on a pedal stool ...

[edit on 7-7-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]

Sorry, but normally I'd leave syntax/spelling alone but this one is way over the top.

"pedal stool"? Have you been going around saying that all your life?

Try using the word "pedestal" (look it up!) instead. Yes, I believe that will work for you.

Carry on ...

reply posted on 8-7-2010 @ 05:15 PM by Sri Oracle

Should congenitally indeterminate; physiological hermaphroditic androgynes have the right to marry?

If so, do they get the choice of male or female?

well then...

Should determinately sexed though congenitally pyschologically hermaphroditic androgynes get to marry?

If so, do they get the choice of male or female?

now...

Should physiologically determinate individuals with acquired psychological transgender inclination get to marry?

If so, do they get the choice of male or female?

Many shades of grey.

When we give any rights to "males and females" we begin by stepping on the rights of the physiological androgyne. Is that fair? Is that equal rights for all?

If we should not step on the rights of(or bestow unequal privileges to) the physiological androgyne, should we step on the rights of those with societally acquired psychological inter-sex?

Sri Oracle

reply posted on 9-7-2010 @ 10:19 AM by 23refugee

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by LibertyLover

And I'm still waiting for a good explanation from one of the religious wackos as to just exactly how letting my lesbian cousin marry her partner is going to have a negative impact on my heterosexual marriage to my husband.

They will breed more of them.
Michael Jackson
gary and tony have a baby.
Its already happening.
Homosexuality should by nature be self extinguishing.
That may be the ultimate perversion.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by RRokkyy]