No, try this: start your own thread instead of hijacking this one. Everyone else can cooperate by not participating in the hijack :(.
This is exactly my point, and I think it’s one that most reasonable people could agree on. As long as we make it clear that government has no interest in how an individual defines marriage, that government doesn’t advocate one definition over another, we can actually advance religious freedom, something all religious people should be concerned about.
Daniel
Continuing the hijack:
Men can already do this under the current law, provided the woman is willing to carry the pregnancy to term. In fact, the man in the scenerio you describe would be able to demand child support from the woman - who legally would be obligated to pay it!
Of course, what I suspect you mean is that the man should be able to legally FORCE the woman to remain pregnant in order to give birth so that he can claim any resulting child. And there’s no way that should be allowed. Pregnancy and childbirth are not, and never will be, risk-free; neither is abortion (although it’s less risky than carrying a pregnancy to term). Since the woman, not the man, is the one whose body is affected by the choice, the woman is the one who gets the final say.
Once a child is born, however, both the man and the woman have equal rights and responsibilities to the infant.
He DOES have rights to it (the child, that is, not a fetus). And the legal responsibilities of parenthood are the source of his rights.
Ironically, the argument that usually seems to crop up in these threads (“the man only helped create the zygote; since the woman makes the sole decision to gestate it, the woman is solely responsible for the resulting child”) completely destroys the concept of inherent paternal rights - even in the situation where the man in question is married to the woman and wants the child! Because even in that scenerio, it’s ultimately the woman and ONLY the woman who’s making the decision to gestate. A world where women have sole responsibility to the product of a pregnancy is a world where fathers have NO legal rights to their children - because they never “created” those children, they only inseminated an egg. Any legal rights a man might obtain would come at the sole discretion of the woman who bore the infant - even if he could prove with 100% certainty that he indeed provided 50% of the DNA in that child’s body. If she’s not feeling generous, the man’s out of luck.
So which do you value more, fellas - the ability to walk away from an unwanted child without suffering any negative repercussions, or full legal rights (with concommitant responsibilities) to all the children you might father, regardless of the mother’s feelings about the mattter? Because logically you can’t have both.
IANAL, but I would think that, as siblings they would be granted hospital visitation rights automatically, and probably wouldn’t have other family members trying to refuse them that right. I believe in some places that can be done to gay partners. I don’t know about other rights and privileges (such as social security or veteran’s benefits) but it’s my guess that a person’s closest relative would qualify automatically for most if not all of them without any sort of civil union. Certainly in some cases a brother or sister can be named as a beneficiary.
I’ll grant you that marriage is usually assumed to include a sexual relationship. My point above was that it’s not required, nor should it be required that it take a specific form.
I have also seen mothers eat their babies, and mates kill each other after sex in nature. That may make it “natural” to them, but doesnt mean its a good idea for us. So many other logical ways to defend homosexuality, this one always struck me as silly.
However, this whole thing is not about discrimination at this point…well for me anyway…the bottom line is that in CA gay marriages are illegal. The mayor and the dumbasses in the city have no right to simply bypass that and do what they want. I dont see how anyone thinks this helps the cause.
I would think even the lawmakers who did support Gay marriages cant at this point support an outright breaking of CA law like this. I think in the end this will set gay marriages back…not forward.
The group argued that since state law does not recognize same sex marriages the weddings were a waste of taxpayer money and were deliberately violating a law passed by California voters in 2000 declaring that marriage could only be between a man and woman.
http://news.public.findlaw.com/news/s/20040220/rightsgayssanfranciscodc.html
I know under federal law, the “aggrieved taxpayer” has no standing to sue (except in establishment cases), so that seems pretty weak unless California has some sort of taxpayer standing law. Also unlikely a non-party citizen has standing to sue for enforcement of state law by a government official. Again, unless there is California law to establish that right.
Seems like a weak standing claim by these groups. Main fight is probably going to be between Attorney General of California and the Mayor, I would think.
Not silly, really, so long as it’s used only as a response to the people arguing “but gay sex is wrong because it is UNNATURAL!”, as though the naturalness or unnaturalness of an activity is what determines the activity’s appropriateness. If (as those particular anti-gay people imply) natural = good, then they should have no problems with gay sex, but big problems with wearing glasses or treating diabetes with insulin. The response is intended to make them see the fallacy of that line of argument.
Well, much of the progress that occurred in the Civil Rights Movement resulted at least in part from the deliberate breaking of discriminatory laws - think lunch counter sit-ins. It’s an act of civil disobedience, intended to both draw public attention to an issue and to assert the laws being broken SHOULD be broken because they are immoral, thus gaining the sympathy of the large, previously indifferent straight majority who haven’t been very concerned with gay marriage rights until now because they aren’t gay and they aren’t close to anyone who is. The actions of the San Francisco mayor certainly have made the public at large sit up and take notice, so the act was successful in accomplishing the first goal. Whether the tactic will work to accomplish the second, larger goal remains to be seen, of course.
Of course in this case, you don’t really need to break any law – all you have to do is ask for a marriage license and be denied one. That establishes standing, and allows you to sue. Precisely the way the litigations in Vermont, Hawaii and Massachussets that resulted in the various court rulings on gay marriage played out.
So what the mayor is doing is a bit of a stunt, but the issue was probably going to come to a head anyway.
Exactly. The mayor took this approach knowing it would bring a lot of reporters (and thus a lot of publicity) to San Francisco, and the resulting hulabaloo would be impossible to ignore and would bring things to a head far more quicky than waiting for an aggreived same-sex couple to file a lawsuit would. It’s a loud, dramatic, risky approach rather than a slow but steady approach.