What is key here is that last bit — absolutely no legal distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples, and this in a country with a large religious conservative population.
Yet here, in the United States, numerous states have voted to pass opposite legislation — banning homosexual couples from marrying, under the grounds that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
The languages may be different, but are the words so different? Are the meanings different?
Apparently so.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - PseudoErsatz
Just so I can respond in a satisfactory manner to the blog originator, please let me know how you would define 'tolerance' for me, from the two statements below: (reference Gregory Koukl)
1) True tolerance applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas.
2) Rejection of another's ideas is a sign of intolerance.
If you are confused between the two, I'll give you a few examples:
A) Hitler had this idea of creating a master race.
B) Stalin had this idea that purging society of certain citizens would create a better society.
C) Certain individuals had this idea to crash planes into buildings on 9/11/01 to get back at America for various and sundry reasons.
D) Certain individuals in society have this idea that there is no such thing as truth statements. (or, to put it another way, some people are absolutely certain that there are no absolutes.)
2 - Bryan McKay
How does a religious fanatic who hates gays and thinks AIDS victims don't deserve respect get to define "tolerance" within the scope of this argument? Koukl is a fucking asshole.
3 - Aaman
Who's Kould?
4 - Bryan McKay
Aaman - this is Koukl. Read absolutely anything on his website, particularly the sections of homosexuality, to see why my hatred of the man is justified.
5 - Steve S
1) True tolerance applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas.
I would say tolerance applies to how we treat people. And I would say that makes fundamentalists right on par with the Taliban.
6 - John Bambenek
Steve-
Then I suggest you emigrate, because fundamentalists are in charge and their voter base is growing.
7 - Steve S
John, yes, I know, that's the 2% 'mandate' you are referring to.
Thanks for the 'don't like what we are doing to your country then leave' sentiment. No, I love this country and I was born and raised here, and I'll stay here watching you all destroy it all. But until free speech goes away, I'll be bitching about it the whole time, that's for sure.
Fundamentalists have already tried to take my life, twice and have assaulted me several times. Why would I leave now, just because you all are getting finally getting ready to branch out beyond my own community?
8 - Aaman
Hang in there, Steve, the pendulum will swing back, as it must, and it has a sharp blade
9 - Steve S
Thanks Aaman. The pendulum does swing, and nobody knows the sharpness of it's blade better than those of us who do not fall smack dab in the middle of it all, but this time will be different.
When the pendulum swings back and pushes fundamentalists 'back', nothing will fuel their 'we are under attack and oppressed' agenda more. Then watch what happens.
10 - Aaman
Ras Al'Ghul be praised!
11 - PseudoErsatz
Never mind. I respectfully disagree with some ideas that are floated as 'legimate' in society. I concurrently make every attempt to respect the person who floats these ideas. If these seem to be incompatible, then my wish is that your mind eventually opens enough so that you see that these concepts are not in opposition to each other. If any human being alive--past, present, future--is under the delusion that every one of their thoughts are equally legitimate, then the state of free thought and intellectual pursuit in this world is clearly in decline.
12 - LegendaryMonkey
Here's my issue with banning homosexuals from marrying legally and being allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals --
1) Allowing this HURTS no one.
2) Not allowing it IS abuse. It's a message that they are lesser individuals, with fewer rights, because they are practicing what some view as a "deviant" lifestyle. They are not afforded equal rights under the law, though that is supposed to be one of the greatest benefits to living in America. Equality and freedom -- isn't that what makes us great? Isn't that why we're here?
So even if we do want to go with the first response, the way we are treating people demonstrates intolerance in my opinion.
13 - Steve S
based on a true story.
Click on the 'story synopsis' link.
A story being made into a movie about the 'tolerance' of right wing fundamentalists.
14 - gonzo marx
one might easily expect Canada to show they are a bit more civilized in treating their Citizens...
for hardline Catholic Spain to be the next to follow is no small "miracle"
wonderous times...
in comment #6 John B sez..
*Then I suggest you emigrate, because fundamentalists are in charge and their voter base is growing.*
i am hoping this is a feeble attempt at humor...when you can, if you would make it clear if this is your actual stance?
thanks in advance
Excelsior!
15 - FluffinPoof
Yo tango una palanka es muy grande!
16 - BlogPolice
Marriage defined. Where? What legal text is available to everyone who would want to define marriage?
Blacks Law Dictionary....
Look it up.
What about U.S.Code? Is marriage defined there?
If so, what does it state.
Code, policy, dictionary's can all be changed. Change them. Then the legal terminology can be adjusted. But change the legal definitions first. Not last.
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
What do you all think of civil unions?
18 - gonzo marx
Matthew asks...
*What do you all think of civil unions?*
can you say "separate but equal" ?
nuff said?
Excelsior
19 - Steve S
separate but equal.
Jim Crow for queers.
billions upon billions spent trying to rework forms. Data entry personnel going postal.
Lawsuits trying to hash out the mess adding more billions to the cost as we try to sort out interstate relationships.
In other words complete disaster that still does not bring equality to all citizens.
20 - Steve S
will businesses that give family discounts be required to give them to civil unions too?
It isn't equality if they aren't 100% the same.
21 - Matthew T. Sussman
Then what would you say to one who favors such constitutional amendments in an attempt to reach a compromise to the issue?
22 - gonzo marx
establishing a sexual "jim crowe law" is NOT a compromise
and i am against any kind of "amendment" that restricts or limits an Individuals Rights
you know..like Prohibition?
Excelsior!
23 - Matthew T. Sussman
Nobody said civil unions were a compromise. At least not on this thread.
But there are two very different bodies of thought, so logically a middle ground does exist.
So how would you bridge the gap?
24 - Steve S
what constitutional amendment are you talking about? One in Spain or here in America? There is no constitutional amendment currently put forth that is an attempt at compromise.
Rather there is only an attempt by religious folks to modify American historical documents to exclude and oppress based on religious belief. That's all we have before us right now, nothing else.
25 - gonzo marx
decent Question...
i am not certain what would satisfy those opposed to folks getting married
maybe you could help...how does it hurt, harm, or infringe on anyone's Rights to have two folks marry?
once i have a handle on that, maybe i can think about it from both sides clearly
Excelsior!