[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ohio
As many a frustrated husband will tell you, marriage and sexual intercourse are not the same thing.

i was saying that A implies (not guarantees) B. what makes you so sure it's the husband who's frustrated?

Originally posted by ohio
I don't know what tiger you're talking about changing it's stripes. I was proving to you why legally it's not equal rights... not sure how you can seperate legal issues and equal rights issues when the law demands equal rights (did I jst run in a circle?). I haven't heard anything about freedom of speech.

what "law" demands equal rights? Just to make sure, we are still talking about a small number of the population which wants to have their lifestyle choice to be legally validated, yes?

Originally posted by ohio
Again, this doesn't address tax issues, and taking a step back, you're simply proving that a civil union is NOT equal to marriage, by the fact that yoe would HAVE to do the paperwork. No, paperwork isn't hard to do, but the point is not to save time or bureacracy, it's to provide equal protection under the law as constitutionally guaranteed.

Will you admit after this brief discussion that a civil union is not equal to a marriage?

we all are in "agreeance" that civil unions are not marriage; if it were, we wouldn't be going 'round and 'round.

so, now your claim is that one of the planks for gay marriage is a tax relief? There are more ways to evade/reduce taxable income than i can name. So that's off the table as a viable argument. Pay the $100 & have a sit w/ a cpa. I save $$$ every year w/ my membership w/ nadn (cheap plug).

what "equal protection under the law" text are you applying here? Recall that california law i posted above. The mayor is in violation of section 115. I am not familiar with US or state constitution which trumps this.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
You and the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

They ruled Texas's law unconstitutional this past summer.

that's my point: it will take a lot of reform on the books across all juristictions that have sodomy (and related) laws before gay marriage can be legally enacted (i believe).

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle
that's my point: it will take a lot of reform on the books across all juristictions that have sodomy (and related) laws before gay marriage can be legally enacted (i believe).

It was the same deal when the Jim Crow laws were dealt with.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
This whole thing raises a couple of concerns with me:

1. Can two men or two women get married, even if they're not gay?

Didn't Liza Minelli marry a guy who was known as being gay?

So, if a straight woman can marry a gay guy, then sure, two hetero women could marry. No two hetero men would even fondle such an idea!

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ummbikes
It was the same deal when the Jim Crow laws were dealt with.

jim crow laws were race-related - a civil rights issue.
gay marriage issue is not a civil rights issue.

from the civil rights act of 1964

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by $tinkle
jim crow laws were race-related - a civil rights issue.
gay marriage issue is not a civil rights issue.

from the civil rights act of 1964

Thank you for posting that. It makes my argument that much more clear.

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

This law specifically includes a lifestyle choice: religion. Now it's arguable that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, but if you are going to insist that it is, the law still provides clear precedent that such choices are protected from discrimination. So why would you NOT add sexual orientation to the list highlighted above (there is actually already precedent of protection of homosexuals under this law)? The argument that it wasn't added then, it shouldn't be added now is incorrect, by the way, as sexual orientation was not an issue in the public consciousness at the time... you would have to somehow prove that it was INTENTIONALLY omitted.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ohio
Thank you for posting that. It makes my argument that much more clear.



This law specifically includes a lifestyle choice: religion. Now it's arguable that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, but if you are going to insist that it is, the law still provides clear precedent that such choices are protected from discrimination. So why would you NOT add sexual orientation to the list highlighted above (there is actually already precedent of protection of homosexuals under this law)? The argument that it wasn't added then, it shouldn't be added now is incorrect, by the way, as sexual orientation was not an issue in the public consciousness at the time... you would have to somehow prove that it was INTENTIONALLY omitted.

i'll let burlysurly take note of both implementing genuflection...but, i digress.

that's a good point, one that i honestly wasn't prepared to answer. it seems that will make for a very compelling case when (not if) argued before the courts. At least, it will give rise to (possibly) ammending the civil rights act, if appropriate.

the Massachusetts Family Institute has offered up a defense for the sanctity of marriage, but it doesn't address the religious aspect of civil rights, but rather of race:

Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, "I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American." The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy.

and i've met ex-christians, certainly a group (purportedly) protected by the civil rights act.
hmmm....

i think all that's needed is just a slight nip-and-tuck of legislation, and this may well be a civil rights issue.

 

[LordOpie]

Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, "I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American." The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy.

Ah ha! What about Michael Jackson! :devil:

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Ah ha! What about Michael Jackson! :devil:

For being an ex-Male?

 

[rideit]

Sore loser...

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2018/04/roy_moore_to_discuss_allegatio.html

Too bad he is suffering from 'Odium'

 

[Pesqueeb]

Science, bitch!

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well, I do declare that I have the vapors!

Trump Threatens Jeff Sessions Over Potential Alabama Senate Run: Report

President Donald Trump reportedly sent a warning to his former attorney general, who is considering standing in Alabama's Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.

www.newsweek.com