Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions. - Page 8

Try again.

Black is a description of some people. Gay is not a description of marriages unless of course you mean they are happy.

Nick

If you are going to insult people, at least make a point.

Funny that when you feel like you are drawing your circle of inclusiveness wider than others. You are enlightened. When I draw mine wider than yours, I'm self-superior.

There have been several essays in magazines and on the web arguing that homosexual marriage is just a means of society reexamining the relevancy of marriage for heterosexuals. People are abandoning marriage because the baggage of it (legal entanglements for life, especially for men) doesn't fit our modern views. You've made it clear you tried it, were a moron for doing so, and likely would not do so again.

Yet there maybe someone you care for and wish to have a legal relationship with that is different than say, any stranger off the street. You might even be cohabitating with her but don't want all the baggage of marriage again.

Homosexual marriage won't fix that. It won't stop heterosexuals from abandoning marriage. Some new forms and words associated with those forms are needed.

I've posted articles on here about widowed husbands suing first ex-husbands for their their dead ex-spouses share of the first husband's pension. We have second marriage children pitted against first marriage children. Overturned prenuptual agreements, divorce and custody agreements that are constantly revisisted due to factors that occured well after they were established, etc.

You get divorced. You have a support order levied against you. You get remarried. You and your new wife are now a household and your ex-wife sues for more support claiming your household income has now doubled so she is entitled to more.

The answer, don't get married. But there should be alternatives. Civil union is a better answer because it starts us on the path of having more than one legally sanctioned type of relationship with regard to the government.

Nick

But you've also stated that you're against the government making EVERYONE use civil union and taking the religious aspects out of the government. You refuse to consider separating the church from the state in this issue.

And using the term civil union is problematic if it means separate but equal. Separate ultimately doesn't mean equal and that's a problem you won't acknowledge either.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would everyone have to use civil union and why would everyone have to suddenly become non-religious? This strikes me as a very odd sort of reasoning. It really appears as if you cannot be content to give someone a new option.

What is so wrong with getting the rights and just letting others alone? You are being a fascist. I'm not trying to be mean, but you can't seem to let people alone until you control the very thoughts that occur within their heads.

Whatever happened to freedom being about giving everyone more choice? Marriage has a lot of history and religious connotation stuck to it. We can simply step around that by allowing civil unions. However of course some people are going to not desire to give up their religious beliefs nor are they ready to move away from the idea of marriage. So you just let them exist side by side. One completely civil. One semi-religious and semi-civil but still there for those folks that happen to have that in their background.

I just don't get this demand that we understand that one size doesn't fit all, and after it is understood a complaining that we don't label all things with the same word, in other words, one size fits all.

Nick

I don't understand what the big fuss is about letting homos get married. I don't see how it hurts anyone. Anyone against it is simply a busybody that needs to stop worrying about everyone else and focus on their own sad pathetic lives.

trump, what about churches that want to married homosexuals?? do you want to limit their rights based on their beliefs of god and religion and the bible?

g

I wouldn't. However the state would likely issue them a certificate of civil union instead of a marriage license after the ceremony.

Nick

Which is why there needs to be a distinction drawn between "marriage" as a religious ceremony and "union" as a state license.

I actually think we're on the same side on this one, Nick.

Cheers
Scott

Why? That is infringing upon my religious freedom. The Church of BR believes that marriage should be available to all people regardless of sexual preference. The state refusing to issue a marriage license to a Disciple of BR because the Disciple of BR happens to be marrying a person of the same gender is tantamount to religious oppression.

By refusing to give the Disciple of the Church of BR a marriage license, the government is promoting the values of one religion over the Church of BR. That, again, is religious oppression.

Yes but unfortunately for the Church of BR, this has been well covered. The Church of BR could believe in child-love, infanticide, human sacrifice and any other number of attributes which society will gladly arrest them for and religiously prosecute them for in a court of law.

Nick

I see. Using such an analogy must imply belief that homosexual marriage is comparable to child-love, infanticide, or human sacrifice lest the analogy and author be disingenuous and blowing a lot of hot air. Two consenting adults desiring marriage is not the same as the stupid scenarios you mentioned. There is no violation of rights of others in two consenting adults desiring marriage. There is a violation of rights of others in the stupid scenarios you mentioned.

Dude, I know you are smarter than this. Come on. Just admit there is no reasonable argument against any two adults being allowed to partake in marriage, regardless of gender.

Get the government out of marriage. Problem solved.

Don't get so pissy. Have your morning coffee. You tried to imply that government cannot regulate something if it is religious. I simply pointed out that what you claimed is not so. There probably isn't a reasonable argument according to some against making use of certain drugs illegal. Yet if your church proclaimed you could only come to true enlightenment by dropping lots of acid, the government won't endorse it.

And finally, dude, there is no reason for government to limit the marriage to two people, to disallow family members, to set the age at 18, etc. They are all basically the constructs of society. So don't complain to me that society enforces its constructs in the area of gender as well. It is a licensing issue and society can use a variety of criteria for giving or disallowing that license. The courts have ruled to widely on this and as a result they are going to be screwed because they are going to have to end up licensing much more than homosexual marriage if push comes to shove. So they will have the choice of overturning themselves on the privacy issue or basically saying they've got to license just about everything.

Nick

currently they are out of marriage (kinda)...it is the people who want to make a constitutional amendment that will limit marriage to their small defined "picture" of what marriage is that want more government involvement (the "i want smaller government" crowd, which is really the "i want smaller government that i don't like, but much bigger government that i do like"...which i don't mind so much, everyone wants what they want and don't want what they don't...that is common sense...i just don't like how they rant that they want smaller government when it is not true, they just want lots of government of the type they approve of...just like the other side)

but then telling people how to live their lives is pretty big in the states...comes from our puritan roots...hell, we fled england because they were too liberal and "randy" for us...and the english are fairly damn (shit, what is the word...frigid, up tight, reserved...argghhh...somebody give me the term i am looking for please)...

i say we make a constitutional amendment to make marriages religious only...can't get married except at a church you have belonged to for at least a year...have to sign an oath to god before marriage...make one very religious, the other not religious at all...or else how do you justify not letting gays marry...it has to be on religious grounds...
but any constitutional amendment is bound to fail, just like the flag amendment never saw the light of day...for two reasons

one...flag burning was rare, but everyone knew that as soon as someone made an amendment, people would have been burning the flag everyday in protest...so it became better to let the flag issue slide off the map...why make a "protection" for something that didn't really need protecting, especially if that "protection" would have actually caused more flag burnings?? this is the same...if they ever make an amendment, new churches or challenges would pop up every day...it would be bedlam...admittedly colorful and well dressed bedlam, but bedlam all the same

two...we (the good old USA) couldn't pass an equal rights amendment...so we were gonna pass a flag amendment? we are going to pass a "non-gay marriage" amendment?? how would you justify that?? saying, "hell, we don't really care enough about the 50 plus percent of the US population that is female to grant them equal rights status, but we sure as hell care about the flag and about marriage enough to protect them!"

it won't fly (pardon the pun)


g

and nick...as for government regs for age and such...there are reasons...you are a minor etc...a reg against gays would be only because being gay is illegal?? don't think that will work...there is no way to accept this limitation except by saying that marriage is inherently religious...

And once again you turn to your old trick of comparing homosexuality, a harmless thing, to things that harm children and kill people.

My take on this:

Gay couples should be able to get married. At least legally.

- Marriage is a question of love between two persons. (should they be of same sex or not)
- Religious Marriage in an other thing that should be ruled by... Each Religions principles.

About adoption of children...

- Rules should be the same as those applying to heterosexual legitimate couples.

... Witch means that we have to legalise gay marriage, and then let them adopt children upon the same rules as heterosexual couples do.


I'm not gay. I'm married. My wife is pregnant. Our first child will be glad to see us in 7 month.
I'd like like to show him (her) a planet made of people helping each others ;-)

I didn't know dropping acid harmed children or killed people.

Nick

Why would everyone have to use civil union? Because we've already clarified that separate does not equal equal. So, everyone has to share the same word/definition in the eyes of the state.

And I'm obviously not in favor of everyone becoming non-religious. I clearly stated that we should separate the church from the state, not from the individual. Nice attempt at deflecting.


What is so wrong? I'll say it again: separate but equal is not equal. So in order to give everyone equal rights, we give them equal but not separate rights. It's really very simple and not fascist at all.


I'll say it again: marriage will still exist but it has no official state recognition. Why do you need the state to recognize it? It's a religious function. Keep it that way. After you get married in your church sign a piece of paper from the government making your marriage an official civil union. Simple.

Why do you want to tie religion into the government?