Or how about, say, Denmark, which has had legal gay marriage for 21 years*. They seem pretty happy with it. Are the Danes on the road towards the end of civil marriage? If not, why will that happen in the US?
*As Rick Mercer says: “Denmark! Come for the fjords, stay for the moral chaos!”.
‘Cause they pee on the seat?
It was a bit of a joke. I’m not sure if there are laws about dudes in bathrooms (you have to have some sort of state action ot implicate the EPC). If I were forced to guess, the boys’ rooms girls’ room divide is enforced by the owner of the facility. However, there are to my understanding a decent amount of court cases holding that there is a presumption that the morther should be the primary custodial parent for a child of tender years. That would appear to be a case of state gender discrimination that does not violate the EPC.
Chessic’s just upset because if the queers can unlock the “Getting Married” achievement it will put them 10 points closer to his life score.
While that’s hilarious, I actually approve of the ruling, tyvm. I wish the citizenry would pull their head out of their asses and just vote to approve SSM, but I’ll take what I can get. Integrity of the law has to be upheld however, so I wouldn’t be in favor of rulings that I think try to bend the constitution too far. Fortunately, that haven’t happened yet.
I refuse to join the circle-jerk that forms for every topic that this board leans heavily toward, though. I can’t stand it when posters feel the need to tag their post with “BTW, I’m for ____, just so you know.” It sickeningly smacks of demagoguery. I could have stated my approval in my original post, but I refuse to ever do so.
One of the most interesting aspects of this case, IMO, is that this judge was appointed by Reagan and GHW Bush, and during his confirmation hearings was bitterly opposed by gays and lesbians precisely because they were sure he would be against gay rights.
Yeah, supporting gay rights was so much cooler before *everybody *was into it.
This brings up an interesting question. If Sacred Heart is a Catholic institution (let’s say it’s a retreat center/romantic getaway), will they be forced to host gay marriages? Or, will they be forced to withdraw services from all couples, like Catholic adoption services have in places like Massachusetts? In other words will they be allowed to discriminate against gay couples?
Chessic–yeah, that’s how it works around here. Hardly anyone argues against what you actually post. Instead, they form a belief about your position on the larger issue and argue against that position. I’ve railed against it before, but you just have to accept it and ignore it. But seeing other posters use that tactic is good for separating the wheat from the chaff.
On topic:
I believe that this decision was completely idiotic and legally unjustifiable, and
I have no problem with gay marriage and would vote for it if given the opportunity.
Glad I could fight your ignorance.
I love when the argument “bad things will happen” is countered with “but the world hasn’t ended yet”. Particularly when, even if I am/were right, the effects coudl not logically be seen yet. A-dime-a-dozen sarcasm is an usual way of hiding the inability or unwillingness to actually think.
The abolition of slavery was more than simply making it illegal; it solidified that slavery was inherently wrong and morally repugnant. However, the effects of slavery continue(d) for decades even if the slaves were now free.
By altering the definition of marriage (and I may be wrong in thinking it is not the right thing to do) will open the way for further alterations (specifically polygamy and polyamory, not dogs or chairs before you say it) that the societal reason for the privieleges afforded to this union.
Marriage as a special institution will seem less relevant and will be replaced by simple (or complicated) civil contracts.
I love it when “Like what?” is met with “'Cause the gaaaaaaaaays!”
And? Even if true, and it sounds like bullshit to me, so what?
Marriage is a special institution. Sure. Tell it to Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. I’m sure NBC is interested in your take on this.
The definition of marriage is not being changed; the discriminatory restriction on the right for some is simply being removed
It’s a stretch to conclude that this will be the result but, even if it is, so the Hell what? Why are those whose lives won’t change one iota, no matter who marries whom, so hung up on what consenting, mentally competent adults choose to do with their own lives?
I know that gays are that way because they are born gay. it is not a choice. Therefore god made them gay. I have no right to question god. They are children of god, just living like god intended them to. Who am I to question god?
Sorry, Cause the gaaaaaaaaays! is your simplisctic answer to all the problems. I’m OK with that, I’m sure it makes you happy and witty.
You make a very good point (no sarcasm). Maybe civil marriage isn’t such a big deal to start with.
Sorry, I have a contract with Fox.
Cadmium-poisoned fish in Belarus doesn’t affect me and can still be against Cadmium-poisoned fish.
It obviously isn’t, or you’d be asking the court to rule against allowing divorces. As others have pointed out, it’s not really about the bullshit “sanctity of marriage”, but about who gets to take part in marriage. Really, if there’s any reasonable argument against SSM that doesn’t boil down to bigotry, I’ve yet to hear it.
I doubt that. It is politics and trying to get people to vote for them. The republican party has almost no interest in the gay problem. except how they can use it to get votes.
Honest question - why is it, in your opinion, that polygamous or polyamorous marriages have not become legal in the countries where gay marriage has been legalized?
Also, why did “altering the definition of marriage” back in 1967 (anti-miscegenation laws) not lead to the end of marriage as a special institution?
Yes, because cadmium-poisoned fish have a negative net impact on humanity. Are you saying that Gays being allowed to marry does the same? If not, what are you saying?
I’m no friend of no-fault divorce.
The arguments are good, you simply don’t want to hear them.
I didn’t use the phrase “sanctity of marriage”.
[QUOTE=Meyer6;12774591
Honest question - why is it, in your opinion, that polygamous or polyamorous marriages have not become legal in the countries where gay marriage has been legalized?
Also, why did “altering the definition of marriage” back in 1967 (anti-miscegenation laws) not lead to the end of marriage as a special institution?[/QUOTE]
Honest answer. Too little time and not enough people wanting it. It took all the time since marriage was invented to have gay marriage and millenia for polygamy (actually polygyny) to almost disappear.
I know this is about Prop 8 and the U.S. so anti-miscegenation laws are a good question (and the answer is: they were a recent, stupid addition which is happily gone), but such laws are a glitch in the history of marriage. There were almost no straight-on anti-miscegenation laws anywhere in the “western world”, most marriage laws had more social impediments that were sometimes intermingled with race.
also, some alteration are good, some are bad.
Yes, I think gay marriage has a negative impact on humanity. It’s not like cadmium-poisoning all the fish in the world.
Please explain.