Twice-divorced Hawaii Gov vetoes Civil Unions Bill

[dbackjon]

This is a Civil Rights issue?

Sorry, dback, you have been taught this lesson before. You have the same rights as everyone else. Nobody has denied you anything.
Move along.

We'd still have Jim Crow if we had to wait for people to overturn them? Baloney. Instead of being overturned in the 50s and 60s they would have been in the 70s and 80s.

Civil Rights issue? Right You know how a lot of blacks get pissed off when the gays try to equate the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement.

Rights delayed are rights denied. How about we suspend your civil rights for 20 years?

And, From Coretta Scott King:

The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood", she stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

In a speech in November 2003 at the opening session of the 13th annual Creating Change Conference, organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Scott King made her now famous appeal linking the Civil Rights Movement to the LGBT agenda: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Scott King's support of LGBT rights was strongly criticized by some black pastors. She called her critics "misinformed" and said that Martin Luther King's message to the world was one of equality and inclusion.

[dbackjon]

Same here... Zero affect - but I'll take your reply as a firm "No Vote"
but I would vote yes to two consenting adult being allowed to marry whoever

So a father could marry his son?

Can a mother marry her son?

[CitadelGrad]

My take on this is unfortunately like many other social issues. I support gay marriage. I voted against South Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a few years ago. (can't remember it if was an amendment or a referendum). But at the same time, I don't see how the equal protection clause applies now to something it was never intended to apply to. I have the same conflict on abortion. I am pro-choice (with trepidation) but there is no way in hell that Roe v Wade was anything other than justices imposing their moral values on an issue that the political process in the states should have decided.

I'm not sure why you think the equal protection clause doesn't apply in this case. It essentially states that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. The law is different now than it was then. New laws have been passed while others have been repealed. Are you suggesting that those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment made the assumption that "The Law" would not evolve from that point?

[OL FU]

My take on this is unfortunately like many other social issues. I support gay marriage. I voted against South Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a few years ago. (can't remember it if was an amendment or a referendum). But at the same time, I don't see how the equal protection clause applies now to something it was never intended to apply to. I have the same conflict on abortion. I am pro-choice (with trepidation) but there is no way in hell that Roe v Wade was anything other than justices imposing their moral values on an issue that the political process in the states should have decided.

I'm not sure why you think the equal protection clause doesn't apply in this case. It essentially states that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. The law is different now than it was then. New laws have been passed while others have been repealed. Are you suggesting that those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment made the assumption that "The Law" would not evolve from that point?

Yes I don't believe the constitution should evolve and I don't think their was any intent to protect sexual preferences.

This was from wiki so take it for what it is worth.

The first truly landmark equal protection decision by the Supreme Court was Strauder v. West Virginia (1880),
soon after the end of Reconstruction. A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury challenged a West Virginia statute excluding blacks from serving on juries. The Court asserted that the purpose of the Clause was

to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

The fifteenth amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Waiting for the constitutional experts to reply but I think the two above and the historical context in which the amendments were passed makes it pretty clear that the amendments were envisioned to protect people based on ethnicity and race, not sexual preference.

I am certain that the provisions have been applied based on other things also, sex etc. Religion may be one of them but it was pretty clearly intended from the beginning that religious freedom would be preserved.

While I realize there is a debate on nature versus nuture with respect to homosexuality, the diffence is still based on behavior and while I have no problem with the behavior, I don't see where the constitution protects it.

[OL FU]

My take on this is unfortunately like many other social issues. I support gay marriage. I voted against South Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a few years ago. (can't remember it if was an amendment or a referendum). But at the same time, I don't see how the equal protection clause applies now to something it was never intended to apply to. I have the same conflict on abortion. I am pro-choice (with trepidation) but there is no way in hell that Roe v Wade was anything other than justices imposing their moral values on an issue that the political process in the states should have decided.

I'm not sure why you think the equal protection clause doesn't apply in this case. It essentially states that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law. The law is different now than it was then. New laws have been passed while others have been repealed. Are you suggesting that those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment made the assumption that "The Law" would not evolve from that point?

Let me revise my statement somewhat. Where states have defined marriage as a union between two people of the same sex, as in Mass and as in the case of the recent ruling regarding equal benefits for same sex marriage, then equal protection should apply.

I don't think they constitution provides homosexuals equal protection regarding the right to marry.

Hope that is a little clearer.

[CitadelGrad]

When I wrote about the evolution of the law, I didn't refer specifically to the Constitution. I don't believe the meaning of the Constitution changes with time either unless the constitutional amendment process is followed. What I meant was that new laws are enacted all the time. As long as those laws are constitutional, they should be applied equally. For example, the tax code gives benefits to married couples that are not available to single taxpayers. If the tax code is constitutional, why shouldn't those benefits be available to any two people who wish to marry, regardless of sexual orientation? By denying marriage rights to gays, the law is being applied unequally and the federal government is failing to provide equal protection under the law. Sexual orientation really isn't the issue here.

[blueballs]

So a father could marry his son?

Can a mother marry her son?

Happens all the time in Boone...

[OL FU]

When I wrote about the evolution of the law, I didn't refer specifically to the Constitution. I don't believe the meaning of the Constitution changes with time either unless the constitutional amendment process is followed. What I meant was that new laws are enacted all the time. As long as those laws are constitutional, they should be applied equally. For example, the tax code gives benefits to married couples that are not available to single taxpayers. If the tax code is constitutional, why shouldn't those benefits be available to any two people who wish to marry, regardless of sexual orientation? By denying marriage rights to gays, the law is being applied unequally and the federal government is failing to provide equal protection under the law. Sexual orientation really isn't the issue here.

I agree basically with what you said except that we are discussing equal protection which is a clause in the Constitution and therefore sexual orientation is relevant because the question becomes (1) does equal protection apply to sexual orientation (if so then homosexuals should be allowed to be married regardless of state law which, in my opinion, would be a change to the constitution, and, if not, then it should be left to the states) and (2) is marriage defined in that manner by the states. The issue is the definition of marriage (and sexual preference like it or not is now part of that definition in most states) which in my opinion should be left to the states based on the constitution. I would have no problem amending the constitution to extend equal protection to differing sexual orientations. If a state says same sex marriage is part of the definition of marriage then all of the benefits associated with marriage provided by the federal government should be provided to those individuals. If a state does not define marriage as a union between two people of the same sex, then they aren't married and they aren't being legally discriminated against. I certainly think if a state defines marriage as a legal union between people of the same sex, then married couple regardless of sexual orientation should receive the benefits of marriage under the law.

Of course the conundrum is what would you do about a couple that marries in Massachusetts and moves to South Carolina. I would assume that they could be considered married for federal purposes but not state purposes. But honestly that raises enough questions to make my head hurt.

[griz37]

Same here... Zero affect - but I'll take your reply as a firm "No Vote"
but I would vote yes to two consenting adult being allowed to marry whoever

So a father could marry his son?

If they are both consenting adults than why not? Just don't expect the government to take care of the messed up babies when a mom marries her son.

[BlueHen86]

So a father could marry his son?

If they are both consenting adults than why not? Just don't expect the government to take care of the messed up babies when a mom marries her son.

Or we could use the same caveats that apply when a man and woman want to marry. If a man can't marry his daughter then he can't marry his son.

[Chizzang]

So a father could marry his son?

If they are both consenting adults than why not? Just don't expect the government to take care of the messed up babies when a mom marries her son.

Did everybody take stupid pills while I was away..?

[native]

If they are both consenting adults than why not? Just don't expect the government to take care of the messed up babies when a mom marries her son.

Or we could use the same caveats that apply when a man and woman want to marry. If a man can't marry his daughter then he can't marry his son.

Too late blue pants. You have already enthusiastically endorsed the slippery slope. Based on your own logic, you have no logical way to slide back up the mountain.

[BlueHen86]

Or we could use the same caveats that apply when a man and woman want to marry. If a man can't marry his daughter then he can't marry his son.

Too late blue pants. You have already enthusiastically endorsed the slippery slope. Based on your own logic, you have no logical way to slide back up the mountain.

If you say so...

[Chizzang]

Too late blue pants. You have already enthusiastically endorsed the slippery slope. Based on your own logic, you have no logical way to slide back up the mountain.

If you say so...

Good god... what a joke of a debate

The idea of consenting adults is pretty simple (Self evident actually)
Leave it up to a bunch of Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls to go Full Retard



Thanks for proving what was already deeply suspected

[BlueHen86]

If you say so...

Good god... what a joke of a debate

The idea of consenting adults is pretty simple (Self evident actually)
Leave it up to a bunch of Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls to go Full Retard



Thanks for proving what was already deeply suspected

He usually calls me a fence sitter, now I'm ethusiastic. I guess the fence I was sitting on was at the top of the slippery slope.

[BlueHen86]

If you say so...

Good god... what a joke of a debate

The idea of consenting adults is pretty simple (Self evident actually)
Leave it up to a bunch of Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls to go Full Retard



Thanks for proving what was already deeply suspected

Was there ever a time when they weren't full retard?

[native]

If you say so...

Good god... what a joke of a debate

The idea of consenting adults is pretty simple (Self evident actually)
Leave it up to a bunch of Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls to go Full Retard



Thanks for proving what was already deeply suspected

So it's simple, cleets? You are advocating for consenting adult mother-son, father-son sexual relationships?

You too, blue pants? What is your beef? You are the one who brought up "caveats." Was your post in jest? Should there be no caveats?

Do you think it is as simple as "consenting adults," and that anything else is just "Full Retard Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls..."???

[mainejeff]

Or we could use the same caveats that apply when a man and woman want to marry. If a man can't marry his daughter then he can't marry his son.

Too late blue pants. You have already enthusiastically endorsed the slippery slope. Based on your own logic, you have no logical way to slide back up the mountain.

The only slippery slope is up your *ss.

[BlueHen86]

Good god... what a joke of a debate

The idea of consenting adults is pretty simple (Self evident actually)
Leave it up to a bunch of Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls to go Full Retard



Thanks for proving what was already deeply suspected

So it's simple, cleets? You are advocating for consenting adult mother-son, father-son sexual relationships?

You too, blue pants? What is your beef? You are the one who brought up "caveats." Was your post in jest? Should there be no caveats?

Do you think it is as simple as "consenting adults," and that anything else is just "Full Retard Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls..."???

I think you are doing a great job of asking a lot of questions on this thread without actually bringing up any original ideas of your own.

[native]

So it's simple, cleets? You are advocating for consenting adult mother-son, father-son sexual relationships?

You too, blue pants? What is your beef? You are the one who brought up "caveats." Was your post in jest? Should there be no caveats?

Do you think it is as simple as "consenting adults," and that anything else is just "Full Retard Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls..."???

I think you are doing a great job of asking a lot of questions on this thread without actually bringing up any original ideas of your own.

Was my response to your post unfair to you in some way? Did I say something to offend you?

[BlueHen86]

I think you are doing a great job of asking a lot of questions on this thread without actually bringing up any original ideas of your own.

Was my response to your post unfair to you in some way?

Another question. Keep up the good work.

[native]

Was my response to your post unfair to you in some way?

Another question. Keep up the good work.

Ideas? My idea is not to change the meaning of traditional marriage. Consenting adults ought to be able to make contracts to handle the practical aspects of non-traditional reationships. Personal income taxes should be abolished. People should pay for their own medicare and social security. The government needs to get out of the "benefits" business.

I feel sympathy for dbjon's heartfelt pleas, I respect citadel grad's equal protection analysis, and I thought you asked a valid question which has not been satisfactorily answered. But, I do not embrace your Brave New World.

Was your question not a good one, bluehen86?

[Chizzang]

Good god... what a joke of a debate

The idea of consenting adults is pretty simple (Self evident actually)
Leave it up to a bunch of Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls to go Full Retard



Thanks for proving what was already deeply suspected

So it's simple, cleets? You are advocating for consenting adult mother-son, father-son sexual relationships?

You too, blue pants? What is your beef? You are the one who brought up "caveats." Was your post in jest? Should there be no caveats?

Do you think it is as simple as "consenting adults," and that anything else is just "Full Retard Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls..."???

I was just assuming we were discussing legitimate concerns... and what marriage ought to involve

and - by the way
The only people interested in what you're suggesting are also Sanctimonious Religions Nut balls



double touche'

[native]

So it's simple, cleets? You are advocating for consenting adult mother-son, father-son sexual relationships?

You too, blue pants? What is your beef? You are the one who brought up "caveats." Was your post in jest? Should there be no caveats?

Do you think it is as simple as "consenting adults," and that anything else is just "Full Retard Sanctimonious Religious Nut Balls..."???

I was just assuming we were discussing legitimate concerns... and what marriage ought to involve

and - by the way
The only people interested in what you're suggesting are also Sanctimonious Religions Nut balls



double touche'

I am not calling you names or making fun of you, Cleets. I seek to understand your meaning. I know it's not as much sport, but indulge me, please.

You are the one who said that this issue of marriage boils down to nothing more than simply "consenting adults." Does your analysis include consenting adult mother-son and other non-traditional sexual relationships? ...Or do you wish to add a few caveats?

[Chizzang]

I was just assuming we were discussing legitimate concerns... and what marriage ought to involve

and - by the way
The only people interested in what you're suggesting are also Sanctimonious Religions Nut balls



double touche'

I am not calling you names or making fun of you, Cleets. I seek to understand your meaning. I know it's not as much sport, but indulge me, please.

You are the one who said that this issue of marriage boils down to nothing more than simply "consenting adults." Does your analysis include consenting adult mother-son and other non-traditional sexual relationships? ...Or do you wish to add a few caveats?

Nope...
Two consenting adults is fine - no further government involvement required

If adult children want to marry their parents - whatever... who cares (see Religious Nut ball reference earlier)