Civil Unions disallowed in ACT

Pages

AuthorTopic: Civil Unions disallowed in ACT
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #50
You wouldn't be so quick to tear down separation of church and state if your religion wasn't sitting on top of the pile right now, and there's no guarantee it will remain there. So many people don't have a problem with a formal prayer in school now, but what if they decided to start making it to Allah? Believe it or not, separation of church and state protects your interests too.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #51
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Opposition to civil unions for homosexual couples is motivated by fear and hate only - there is no other explanation. "Traditional marriage" is not "under attack" - how can a formal government union of two monogamous homosexual men possibly threaten a heterosexual couple's marriage?

Fear and hate. How easy it is for so called Christians to forget the "loving thy neighbor" and "removing the log from your own eye" passages of the Gospel - theoretically more important to Christians than the OT or the letters of Paul they rely on for their hate-mongering.

Furthermore, where is the harm? All the other non-Christians can get married, be they Jews, Muslims, or even Atheists. Furthermore, homosexual marriage is not looked at as wrong by a number of Christian sects and certainly not on the part of the Unitarian Universalist church. Why should bigoty fundamentalist Christianity hold the prevailing view? Boo-urns, I say.

Frankly, I think the state probably ought to just get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. It draws in only nominal fees, and the common law has progressed to the point that comparable contract law largely makes many of the will, trust, and estate arrangements redundant. Hospital visitation rights and insurance policies could be handled just as comparably.

A quote a friend of mine heard on an American radio show: "You are assuming facts not yet in evidence."

Though I agree with the last paragraph for reasons very different from yours.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

You wouldn't be so quick to tear down separation of church and state if your religion wasn't sitting on top of the pile right now, and there's no guarantee it will remain there. So many people don't have a problem with a formal prayer in school now, but what if they decided to start making it to Allah? Believe it or not, separation of church and state protects your interests too.
You wouldn't say that if you knew anything about what religion I espouse or where I live. Again, "assuming facts not yet in evidence."

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:04: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #52
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Thank you. The term was coined 60 years ago, approxomately 170 years after the constitution was written (give or take a few years).
Er, no. It was just used word-for-word in a binding legal document at that time. The phrase was coined shortly after the writing of the Constitution. A quick Google search turns up the date of 1802 from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, which seems probable.

The idea, which is what we're actually talking about, dates back well before the writing of the Constitution.

EDIT: Also, I think you missed one of my points. There's a difference between "imposing religion" and "imposing on religion." The Establishment Clause forbids only the former, not the latter. (The Free Exercise Clause could be said to prohibit the latter, but that's another issue.)

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

You wouldn't say that if you knew anything about what religion I espouse or where I live. Again, "assuming facts not yet in evidence."
You're a Jew in Israel, are you not? Your religion is definitely on top in your country.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #53
What Kel said about Thomas Jefferson.

Also, what facts am I assuming that aren't in evidence?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Warrior
Member # 7171
Profile #54
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

[quote]

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Drew:
You wouldn't be so quick to tear down separation of church and state if your religion wasn't sitting on top of the pile right now, and there's no guarantee it will remain there. So many people don't have a problem with a formal prayer in school now, but what if they decided to start making it to Allah? Believe it or not, separation of church and state protects your interests too.
You wouldn't say that if you knew anything about what religion I espouse or where I live. Again, "assuming facts not yet in evidence."

The station of Jews in Israel is not as disadvantaged as you imply.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Sunday, May 28 2006 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #55
So your interests are protected; indeed, civil marriage does not exist in Israel.

So where's your dog in this fight?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #56
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Thank you. The term was coined 60 years ago, approxomately 170 years after the constitution was written (give or take a few years).
Er, no. It was just used word-for-word in a binding legal document at that time. The phrase was coined shortly after the writing of the Constitution. A quick Google search turns up the date of 1802 from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, which seems probable.

The idea, which is what we're actually talking about, dates back well before the writing of the Constitution.

If it wasn't "used word-for-word in a binding legal document" then I fail to see how anyone could be expected to follow it as law.

quote:
EDIT: Also, I think you missed one of my points. There's a difference between "imposing religion" and "imposing on religion." The Establishment Clause forbids only the former, not the latter. (The Free Exercise Clause could be said to prohibit the latter, but that's another issue.)
Not the way Tyran and Alo described it, but I'll take your word for it.

quote:
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

You wouldn't say that if you knew anything about what religion I espouse or where I live. Again, "assuming facts not yet in evidence."
You're a Jew in Israel, are you not? Your religion is definitely on top in your country.

America provides a better "Jewish state" than Israel. And only because America is pretty much unphased by the threats that can force Israeli politicians to do just about anything.

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

So your interests are protected; indeed, civil marriage does not exist in Israel.

So where's your dog in this fight?

My argument's not based on politics, but on religion.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:25: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #57
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If it wasn't "used word-for-word in a binding legal document" then I fail to see how anyone could be expected to follow it as law.
Equivalent statements were made in binding legal documents. The Establishment Clause is an equivalent statement.

EDIT: Regardless of when it became law, it's law now, which is sort of what we're talking about. There is no possibility of the government forcing religious institutions to perform marriages that they don't want to perform — that's not what most gay rights advocates are arguing for — so this whole part of the discussion is moot, as I said at the beginning.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:30: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #58
If I don't follow your faith, why should any of its precepts apply to me?

EDIT: Also, the words have been applied in the US Supreme Court (mentioned above in the 1947 case reference), which is binding law until it is changed, and this interpretation is unlikely to change anytime soon in the US.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:29: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #59
If you don't follow my faith, why do you take select bits out and turn them into law? That is what I'm trying to get across here.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #60
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If you don't follow my faith, why do you take select bits out and turn them into law? That is what I'm trying to get across here.
What selected bits am I taking out to turn into law? As I mentioned, I would be all for eliminating regulation of marriage and the corresponding benefits it awards to those hetero couples out there. The state's interest in regulating and providing benefits to married couples is largely derived from its interest in promoting population growth. However, the state could just as easily create this incentive by instead allowing any couple or individual tax benefits for raising children.

If anything, I champion full-blown separation of church and state, because I believe that when religion becomes involved in government, oppression of non-members of that religion invariably ensues, and not being oppressed by another is I think what's at the core of the Constitution of my country.

EDIT: Furthermore, who's to say that Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Voodoo have a monopoly on good ideas for social organization? Just because a particular practice is a part of your faith tradition doesn't mean that it can't exist independently as a good idea for the social contract. Judaism claiming credit for the benefits of marriage is like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

Because we are talking about laws that effect everyone in a country, we necessarily are talking about the social contract/politics. Given this, what could be a valid social reason, outside of religious opposition, for not allowing civil unions of gay couples?

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:52: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #61
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If you don't follow my faith, why do you take select bits out and turn them into law? That is what I'm trying to get across here.
What selected bits am I taking out to turn into law? As I mentioned, I would be all for eliminating regulation of marriage and the corresponding benefits it awards to those hetero couples out there. The state's interest in regulating and providing benefits to married couples is largely derived from its interest in promoting population growth. However, the state could just as easily create this incentive by instead allowing any couple or individual tax benefits for raising children.

If anything, I champion full-blown separation of church and state, because I believe that when religion becomes involved in government, oppression of non-members of that religion invariably ensues. It certainly happens today in my home state of Kentucky.

EDIT: Furthermore, who's to say that Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Voodoo have a monopoly on good ideas for social organization? Just because a particular practice is a part of your faith tradition doesn't mean that it can't exist independently as a good idea for the social contract. That's like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

Because we are talking about laws that necessarily effect everyone in a country, we necessarily are talking about the social contract/politics. Given this, what could be a valid social reason, outside of religious opposition, for not allowing civil unions of gay couples?

I'm sorry, I confused you for one of the countless supporters of legalized marriages. All the same, I find your opinion correct on that particular point for all the wrong reasons.

I never did. But that was a Judao-Christian concept that was taken and as such, it falls into the hands of Judao-Christins to remove it from the hands of the government, seeing as nobody else has any religious-based reason to do so. As such, your analogy is horrendously exagerrated.

Um, my position is base on religious opposition. Asking me to give a valid social reason other than that is pointless, because that is not why I'm arguing this.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6754
Profile #62
I see a lot of brilliant arguments here, things I'd never have dreamt of, things I could never put into words, and some obvious truths. I don't have much to say on the subject that hasn't been said here already.

However, one character did catch my eye ...

quote:
Originally written by a genius
I defy you to find any place in the constitution that says that there should be a seperation of church and state. Go ahead and look. It isn't there.
I thought this was a joke for a moment.
.
.
.
Then I saw the other things you had written.

Can't wait for your next post. Wish I could come up with little jewels like that one! Such a little son of gOD you are with your "infernal666hate" screen name and seventeen years of -- no doubt -- abstinence from sodomy (masturbation qualifying, gOD can see what you do under the sheets).

--------------------
One of these words is mispelled.
Posts: 284 | Registered: Tuesday, January 31 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #63
Infernal, your position has been rather vague. It appears that you're against the separation of church and state, but you think that, because of religious reasons, the state should not be dealing with marriages but in fact with legal contracts, but you're against all the reasons so far outlined in favor of the very thing that you agree with.

Your justification, as far as I can tell, is that "marriage" is a religious thing and therefore should not be used by the state, despite the fact that you're against the separation of church and state.

What the hell do you actually think?

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #64
I'm curious about what the "wrong reasons" are.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #65
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

But that was a Judao-Christian concept that was taken and as such, it falls into the hands of Judao-Christins to remove it from the hands of the government, seeing as nobody else has any religious-based reason to do so. As such, your analogy is horrendously exagerrated.
I'm horribly confused by this argument. Please explain it?

And Nick, we already covered that quote from Infernal (aka radix). Everybody familiar with the U.S. Constitution has refuted that point.

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7171
Profile #66
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

I'm sorry, I confused you for one of the countless supporters of legalized marriages. All the same, I find your opinion correct on that particular point for all the wrong reasons.

I never did. But that was a Judao-Christian concept that was taken and as such, it falls into the hands of Judao-Christins to remove it from the hands of the government, seeing as nobody else has any religious-based reason to do so. As such, your analogy is horrendously exagerrated.

Marriage is not a concept exclusive to the Abrahamic religions.
quote:

Um, my position is base on religious opposition. Asking me to give a valid social reason other than that is pointless, because that is not why I'm arguing this.

The form of marriage traditionally viewed as proper by the 'religious' has not included unions between races or faiths either.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 13:06: Message edited by: Maimonides ]
Posts: 66 | Registered: Sunday, May 28 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #67
quote:
Originally written by Nick Ringer:


quote:
Originally written by a genius
I defy you to find any place in the constitution that says that there should be a seperation of church and state. Go ahead and look. It isn't there.
I thought this was a joke for a moment.
.
.
.
Then I saw the other things you had written.

Can't wait for your next post. Wish I could come up with little jewels like that one! Such a little son of gOD you are with your "infernal666hate" screen name and seventeen years of -- no doubt -- abstinence from sodomy (masturbation qualifying, gOD can see what you do under the sheets).

Daughter of God, and you can't really expect an Israeli to know the American constitution inside and out. How much do you know about foreign constitutions?

Besides, Infernal's right. The Constitution doesn't say a thing about separating church and state. The Bill of Rights says it.

—Alorael, who would in any case rather have the discussion stay civil, thank you very much.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #68
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Opposition to civil unions for homosexual couples is motivated by fear and hate only.
Just so you know, presuming other people's motives is a pretty offensive thing to do. Especially these particular motives.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #69
It's just my opinion, Ash, and you're free to contest it. Are you offended? Can you prove that your opposition to gay marriage is truly motivated by anything else?

It's all well and good that you dislike the notion, but why are you so concerned with what other people choose to do with their lives? All that only some of this relatively small portion of the population want is the right to form lasting, monogamous relationships with the person they love, and be able to recognize that person as a spouse for legal purposes such as rights to healthcare and estate. What possible basis do you have for denying these people such rights that you as a hetero enjoy? Because this denial essentially makes them second-class citizens, and religious motivation or no, it really seems to me to come from a place of mean-spiritedness.

If the law gives people the right to choose not to believe in the Bible, why should the Bible be allowed nevertheless to oppress their rights?

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:05: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #70
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Then contest it, Ash. Are you offended? Can you prove that your opposition to gay marriage is anything else?
Yes, I am offended, and I should not have to "prove" my motives. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #71
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Yes, I am offended, and I should not have to "prove" my motives. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Well then, what are your motives for opposing gay marriage? There's always some motive underlying "I think X is wrong," or "I think Y is right." There's always a "because." What's your "because"?

EDIT: Note that in my original statement, I did not assign this view necessarily to Christians. I know many Christians that believe it should be legal, and I even know fundamentalist Christians who, despite being against gay marriage as a matter of religious principle, nevertheless recognize that the law of the state is separate from their beliefs, and that homosexuals should under the law of the state be entitled to the same rights.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 15:18: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #72
Drew, I'll say first of all that your solution to the marriage dilemma is the one that I've espoused for a few years now, I am heartily in agreement with you on that point.

Fear and hate, however, is rhetoric gone over the top. The fact is that many religions have a ceremony which is seen as basically synonymous with the legal entity of marriage, which excludes gays. Gays and the other backers of gay marriage would like to use the government to pass a law in contradiction to that precept. In my opinion, this amounts to a symbolic statement of "#$%^ you, your institution is backwards and immoral." Of course, the religious counterpart of prohibiting gay marriage also amounts to "#$%^ you, your way of life is disgusting and immoral." In my opinion, government should not be used to say "#$%^ you" to anyone, no matter how much those damn fundies or those damn gays need a(n) "#$%^ you," so the only reasonable action would be to leave the debate altogether and focus merely on economic issues raised by the common social behaviors of cohabitation, reproduction, and the sharing of property.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #73
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

It's just my opinion, Ash, and you're free to contest it. Are you offended? Can you prove that your opposition to gay marriage is truly motivated by anything else?

It's all well and good that you dislike the notion, but why are you so concerned with what other people choose to do with their lives? All that only some of this relatively small portion of the population want is the right to form lasting, monogamous relationships with the person they love, and be able to recognize that person as a spouse for legal purposes such as rights to healthcare and estate. What possible basis do you have for denying these people such rights that you as a hetero enjoy? Because this denial essentially makes them second-class citizens, and religious motivation or no, it really seems to me to come from a place of mean-spiritedness.

If the law gives people the right to choose not to believe in the Bible, why should the Bible be allowed nevertheless to oppress their rights?

Replace "gay marriage" with "polygamy" in the above post and the reasoning still holds. However, for some reason I don't see opponents of polygamy being called "hate-filled fanatics".

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #74
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Does this look like a court of law to you? Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral one.

As for the suggestion raised here that the government stop granting "marriage" licenses and start granting legal statuses that are equivalent but called something else, I agree, but I worry about how to convince the American people that this is a good idea. How could one sell this solution?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages