Jump to content

Prop 8 and the Real Answer


Vegan Joe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've made this statement before and it's not something I made up.

Prop 8 is all about a "word".

Same sex proponents are all wrong.

Instead of trying to have marriage defined as the union of any two people, they should be spending their

money, energy, and time, on getting to the heart of the matter instead of calling people, religious

institution, etc., homophobes.

 

First off, "Marriage" should not be used in governmental documents, only a word like "union"

Second, and this is were the same sex advocates should be spending their time, and money.

PS They should be giving Californians credit for being far ahead of most of the rest of the country when it comes to same sex.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

 

Defense of Marriage Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

 

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

 

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

 

Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this the "real" answer?

 

Are opposing thoughts not "real"? Aren't they just opposing viewpoints, impassioned perspectives based on experience, upbringing, and/or faith?

 

Ok fine. Technically there are other answers, but he has a point, and it's one that I wish more people would agree on. Too much of the debate focuses on the word instead of the privileges. If the word "marriage" were taken out of the civil agreement and only applied to the religious bond, it would make perfect sense. Unfortunately, I think the reason same-sex marriage advocates focus instead on getting the civil definition of marriage expanded is because getting the word removed from the civil space is even more far-fetched a goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much of the debate focuses on the word instead of the privileges.

But doesn't the word encompass the privileges?

 

If the word "marriage" were taken out of the civil agreement and only applied to the religious bond, it would make perfect sense.

I want to get married someday, call myself 'married' to my future husband (WITH all the privileges!).... but I'm not religious, and would never have a religious ceremony.... should the word not apply to me?

 

(Mostly playing devil's advocate here!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much of the debate focuses on the word instead of the privileges.

But doesn't the word encompass the privileges?

No, which I believe Vegan Joe may have mentioned in another thread. Even if you're married in MA or CT or CA, you're missing out on over 1,000 federal marriage benefits. (It's debatable whether some of them are really "benefits," but that's how they're intended.) Even within individual states they can apply the word without applying the privileges. I know in MA they're equal to the fullest extent that can be granted by the state, but I can't speak for anyone else.

 

If the word "marriage" were taken out of the civil agreement and only applied to the religious bond, it would make perfect sense.

I want to get married someday, call myself 'married' to my future husband (WITH all the privileges!).... but I'm not religious, and would never have a religious ceremony.... should the word not apply to me?

(Mostly playing devil's advocate here!)

In reality, I think the word would swiftly become a catch-all for any sort of private commitment, religious or secular, associated with the civil commitment previously referred to as "marriage" and consummated (not like that, pervs) in some sort of ceremony.

Edited by blabbate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the rapture is coming soon? Are all of the fundamentalist Christians in America going to ascend into heaven?

Should I e-mail you in hell and let you know. lol

 

See this statement of yours still proves you don't know who or what I am. But you would like to think that you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should I e-mail you in hell and let you know. lol

Hell only has access to the Usenet alt.* hierarchy. No email.

 

"In June 2008, it was announced that Sprint and Verizon would be cutting off access to the alt.* hierarchy to their subscribers, citing child pornography as the number one reason."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...