Religious Politics - Christian antagonists

[Green Gaia]

Which were all struck down if you recall.

This time, it's not dead. And same gender couples STILL cannot marry.

 

[GloriaPatri]

True, true...our American traditions do die hard (thankfully). No one is coming, in any organized fashion, to round up gays and send them to gas chambers.

They only have to fear losing their jobs and children.

No big deal, eh?

No, not really. Gays can adopt children and laws that restrict or prohibit them (from my knowledge) are probably not going to get passed. As for the job market, employers have the right to fire anyone at anytime - even if it's for reasons that are morally reprehensible.

 

[GloriaPatri]

This time, it's not dead. And same gender couples STILL cannot marry.

They can get married in Massachuessetes and can get civil unions in California, Washington D.C., Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont. I don't see this trend reversing, in fact I see it doing the opposite. So far it's been a state's rights issue.

 

[Green Gaia]

No, not really. Gays can adopt children and laws that restrict or prohibit them (from my knowledge) are probably not going to get passed.

Gays and lesbians cannot adopt in every state. The laws are already passed and are on the books. In Virginia if this amendment is passed, guardianship rights may be in jeopardy.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Gays and lesbians cannot adopt in every state. The laws are already passed and are on the books. In Virginia if this amendment is passed, guardianship rights may be in jeopardy.

The only state that bans it is Florida and Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, and Colorado have a de facto ban.

That means 45 states will allow you to. While this is disappointing this is what you sometimes get in a democracy.

 

[Green Gaia]

They can get married in Massachuessetes and can get civil unions in California, Washington D.C., Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont. I don't see this trend reversing, in fact I see it doing the opposite. So far it's been a state's rights issue.

Wrong. Only Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions to same gender couples. I belive those other states only have a same-gender couples registry or some form of domestic partnership laws. Which is not civil unions no where near the same as civil marriage.

Marriage in Massachusetts stays in that state because of federal laws like the DOMA. People from another state cannot go there and get married. Likewise, once same gender couples who have married in Massachusetts move to another state, their marriage is no longer recognized. The same for civil unions. They do not give the same weight that federal marriage rights and protections do.

 

[Green Gaia]

The only state that bans it is Florida and Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, and Colorado have a de facto ban.

That means 45 states will allow you to. While this is disappointing this is what you sometimes get in a democracy.

In most of those states it is not explictly allowed either, meaning local counties and agencies can make up their own rules about who can adopt and who cannot, many times denying gays and lesbians the right to adopt.

This is not a democracy, it's a republic. That means the majority cannot trample on the rights of a minority simply because you want to.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Wrong. Only Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions to same gender couples. I belive those other states only have a same-gender couples registry or some form of domestic partnership laws. Which is not civil unions no where near the same as civil marriage.

Nope, wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage

 

[GloriaPatri]

In most of those states it is not explictly allowed either, meaning local counties and agencies can make up their own rules about who can adopt and who cannot, many times denying gays and lesbians the right to adopt.

This is not a democracy, it's a republic. That means the majority cannot trample on the rights of a minority simply because you want to.

If you want to be technical it's a democratic republic that incorporates features of republicanism and democracy.

The US has a long history of regulating social behavior because the masses support it. You can recite idealized statements to me all day - it isn't going to change the fact that many people voted to have same-sex marriage banned/voted for politicians to ban it. The same goes for same-sex adoption.

While I don't agree with it, it's the reality of things.

 

[Green Gaia]

Nope, wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage[/color]

Civil unions, domestic partnerships OR registered partnership offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage are available in: .... U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont; and the U.S. District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

Did you read the first part of that sentence?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States for which states allow civil unions.

 

[Green Gaia]

While I don't agree with it, it's the reality of things.

It's wrong and discriminatory and I will continue to fight it. But I need some help.

 

[GloriaPatri]

Civil unions, domestic partnerships OR registered partnership offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage are available in: .... U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont; and the U.S. District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

Did you read the first part of that sentence?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States for which states allow civil unions.

Yes, I did. What that implies is that same-sex couples get some kind of recognition in those states.

 

[GloriaPatri]

It's wrong and discriminatory and I will continue to fight it. But I need some help.

Of course.

The State has no right to coerce anyone into doing anything.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, I did. What that implies is that same-sex couples get some kind of recognition in those states.

But it's not civil marriage. It's not even close.

 

[GloriaPatri]

But it's not civil marriage. It's not even close.

Yes, but your statement implied that same-sex couples get some kind recognition only in Massachussets and Vermont which isn't the case.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, but your statement implied that same-sex couples get some kind recognition only in Massachussets and Vermont which isn't the case.

I didn't imply anything.

I stated, "Only Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions to same gender couples,"

and

"Marriage in Massachusetts stays in that state because of federal laws like the DOMA. People from another state cannot go there and get married. Likewise, once same gender couples who have married in Massachusetts move to another state, their marriage is no longer recognized."

Are you disputing what I said?

 

[GloriaPatri]

I didn't imply anything.

I stated, "Only Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions to same gender couples,"

and

"Marriage in Massachusetts stays in that state because of federal laws like the DOMA. People from another state cannot go there and get married. Likewise, once same gender couples who have married in Massachusetts move to another state, their marriage is no longer recognized."

Are you disputing what I said?

Actually, what you said was "This time, it's not dead. And same gender couples STILL cannot marry." I then replied, while that is true (in most states), the aforementioned states offer some type of legal recognition. What I got from your post was that you were implying every state (which isn't true) denied some kind of legal recognition to gays. I'm sorry if this wasn't your intended meaning.

 

[Green Gaia]

Actually, what you said was "This time, it's not dead. And same gender couples STILL cannot marry." I then replied, while that is true (in most states), the aforementioned states offer some type of legal recognition. What I got from your post was that you were implying every state (which isn't true) denied some kind of legal recognition to gays. I'm sorry if this wasn't your intended meaning.

I didn't say "some kind of legal recognition" I was talking about civil marriage, which is why I said, "same gender couples STILL cannot marry."

Civil unions, civil marriage, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships; the terms are not interchangable.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I didn't say "some kind of legal recognition" I was talking about civil marriage, which is why I said, "same gender couples STILL cannot marry."

Civil unions, civil marriage, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships; the terms are not interchangable.

I never said they were.

I was just saying that while most states don't recognize same-sex marriage, some states afford same-sex couples some leve of recognition.

 

[Green Gaia]

I never said they were.

I was just saying that while most states don't recognize same-sex marriage, some states afford same-sex couples some leve of recognition.

Very few do and none of them are on par with what is available to heterosexual couples.