Home / Culture and Society / Spirituality / Special Rights, Not Equal Rights

Special Rights, Not Equal Rights

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The jig is up. We can now officially put to bed the lie that advocates of gay marriage only want equal rights. According to a Reuters story out of Connecticut, eight gay and lesbian couples are asking that state’s Supreme Court to mandate the legalization of gay marriage. You should know that Connecticut is a state that already grants the “rights and benefits” of marriage to homosexuals under a civil unions law.

The couples claim they are seeking the right to marry because “a ban on gay marriage violates their constitutional rights”. They claim not being able to marry is a violation of their equal protection rights under the Constitution. Oh? What rights as individuals are they being deprived of? Surely not privacy. The Supreme Court covered their rights to conduct their special behavior under the un-enumerated right to privacy several years ago in its Lawrence vs. Texas decision.

What this is really about is their “right” to force everyone else, via the state, by way of the judiciary, to approve of – and officially sanction – their behavior and grant them rights and benefits on the basis of that behavior alone. It would seem that, if they have the right to everyone else’s approval, then everyone else no longer retains the rights to their own opinions. Of course, that irony isn’t lost on them, just ignored.

They’re proving that they don’t just want their rights to privacy, and they’re not satisfied with being granted equal rights based on their behavior. They want it all baby! They’re opposed to marriage licenses with checkboxes marked “husband” and “wife”. They’re against the state issuing birth certificates that identify “mother” and “father”. Essentially, they want the eradication of sex as a distinction.

If they are granted such rights, what happens to the rights of others? What about the rights of religious groups that provide adoption services and who’s faith will not allow them to place children with homosexual couples? What about the rights of society to govern itself in a way that protects its future? What about the rights of children?

Aside from its purpose of creating an entity to foster an atmosphere for the growth and nurturing of the next generation and protecting the family’s resources, there would be no reason for marriage to exist. What’s left is just a corporation. The state, as well as many private institutions, offer benefits and inducements to encourage male and female partners to sacrifice their individual rights and freedoms to that of the marriage, for the sake of the next generation. And if society has an interest in anything, it should be its future generations.

This is a subject that the American people have spoken out very loudly and very clearly on. State constitutional amendments or similar referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman have passed by an average of seventy percent of the vote in twenty-seven out of twenty-eight states where they have appeared on the ballot.

Bypassing the will of overwhelming majorities of the electorate on an issue that would have repercussions all throughout our legal system will give us what we have in the abortion debate; an unsettled political issue that was never fully aired, thanks to the judiciary.

And make no mistake about it, we are headed to a lawyer’s dream world when it comes to litigation that would spring from such a radical redefinition of marriage. The institution is so interwoven into our legal structure that simply changing the definition of the term would call other laws that contain the term into question. The class actions suits would fly. Add the fact that people are constantly moving from state to state and the problem gets worse. The challenges to one state’s laws on the basis of marriages in other states will flood the courts.

Already, the state of Virginia is as odds with Vermont and a lesbian who divorced her former partner in a civil union in that state. The fight is over a child. The former Virginia couple went to Vermont to obtain a civil union, then moved back to home. Thereafter, one of them was artificially inseminated and later gave birth. The “non-biological” mother (man this gets confusing) never legally adopted the girl under Virginia law. The couple split up when the biological mother became a Christian. As a result, she left the union and took her biological, non-adopted child with her.

The result? The state of Vermont orders the mother to grant parental rights to the non-mother, and Virginia says no. The case comes down to whether or not one state can impose its same-sex unions law on another state. We have dueling state courts and will no doubt soon have dueling federal district and circuit courts. Supreme Court here we come.

Does an individual state have the right to define marriage within its borders, we have to ask? Is the federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional? Or will marriage be covered under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, causing all states to recognize marriages performed in other states, whatever their nature?

Methinks we may have replaced Sandra Day O’Connor just in time.

Powered by

About Drew McKissick

Drew McKissick is a political consultant with over twenty-five years of experience specializing in political strategy, planning and organization as well as the development of grassroots related political action programs. He has worked as a political activist at the local, state and national levels, and has served in elected and appointed positions at all levels of the Republican Party, including serving as a member of the Republican National Committee. He also writes a regular column providing analysis and commentary on current events.
  • How on earth do you justify calling marraige a “special” right. That’s an equal right. It’s not like they’re asking for anything additional to what’s normally granted to married couples. Civil unions don’t grant Next of Kin rights that marriage does.

    You’re going to get sand in your ears with your head like that.

  • Civil Union laws are not all the same – that’s part of the problem – some of them do grant next of kin rights. This is something the courts are going to have to deal with, but it seems to me that without ALL the rights then civil union laws are indeed not ‘equal protection’, and I suspect that the courts will mandate that next of kin rights go with them whether written into them or not.


  • Steven M.

    What’s special about wanting the same (read equal) rights as provided by marriage? When the civil union can fill out a joint federal tax form and check off all the same boxes as a married couple, you can talk… Or when they can go to another state and enjoy all the priviledges allowed to a married couple, you can talk… Until then, don’t blather on about ‘special’ rights.

  • Steven M.

    What’s special about wanting the same (read equal) rights as provided by marriage? When the civil union can fill out a joint federal tax form and check off all the same boxes as a married couple, you can talk… Or when they can go to another state and enjoy all the priviledges allowed to a married couple, you can talk… Until then, don’t blather on about ‘special’ rights.

  • D’oh

    Another PR consultant trying to gin up some fire for the base to take attention away from current disasters.

    What Dave said in number 2 hits most of the high points.

    the original poster closes with , “Methinks we may have replaced Sandra Day O’Connor just in time.”

    Thank you for stating part of your agenda so clearly.

  • D’oh by calling them “Special rights” they think they can anger those less ignorant than us in to thinking we want something more than what they have.

    It’s a catch phrase to miguide people, just like this article.

    All I had to read was “their behavior” to ascertain that.

  • D’oh

    I know, Jet. Hence my statements.

    PR people frame their contentions,slanting them as they feel like it , regardless of accuracy. Their entire profession is based upon lying to convince people of what they want for profit.

    Hence my contention that they and marketers have a special place in Hell with other liars and betrayers.

    At least, according to Dante.

  • Kam

    This article is right on with its analysis, regardless of its point of view. Whether you think that society should welcome same sex couples on an equal basis with opposite sex couples or not, the analysis is right. It is disingenuous for the same-sex crowd to pretend that same-sex marriage is not about forced acceptance of their lifestyle across society. Nor is same-sex marriage equal to the civil rights era, when people of color generally had rights in most of the states but not in some few former-slave states.

    Same-sex marriage should be addressed by the society in general, through the representative democratic process, rather than by the choice of 4 or 5 judges. It seems to me that much of society is now comfortable with tolerance, but not acceptance. Ramming a wholesale revolution in marriage down the throats of the people will not generate that acceptance.

  • Jason

    Yes, yes, by all means, let’s let the Mob rule, because we know that the Majority is always correct when it comes to civil rights. That is why we do have a court that can (or should) look at things impartially, without the bias or religion or preconceptions.

  • Bliffle

    The gays just want to get in on the same Special Rights scam that the straights have used for a long time.

  • Oh Kam, you poor thing, I shall say a prayer for your misguided soul and light a candle. Don’t you know that God created us all and loves us all in Christian fellowship.

    It is the Devil Satin who has invaded your soul and taught you to hate and prejudge others. for Jesus said, “Judge not, lest you be judge yourself” and also we are taught let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Are you without sin Kam, just as Drew is?

    As the Lion was created by our almighty God to co-exist with all creatures, until the devil taught it to kill, you were created to love your fellow mankind, until the devil taught you to hate.

    For the love of our Saviour Jesus Christ you must exocise the demons of self-righteousness, for it is a sin and you will be judged at the gates of heaven for it.

    In other words stop beating your bible and start reading it dumbass!

  • Kam

    The American public is not the Mob, if you think so, you don’t know us well. Back in 1964, if there were a vote on whether or not the race discrimination that existed in several of the states should be ended, I am confident (having lived through the era) that the people would have voted to end race discrimination. And it is not enought that ‘the courts’ look at marriage laws impartially, many have done so. Pretty much, except for one or two judges’ votes one way or another, the states of Massachusetts and New Jersey would not have been mandated to create new laws. So, the bias, or opinion, or logic, or emotion, of only two people, one NJ judge and one MA judge have turned marriage on its’ head. Is that preferable to having the body politic address it?

    What will happen when 2 judges of an opposite view force laws upon the rest of us in some other situation, say euthanasia or privacy or parental rights, or even representative democracy?

  • D’oh

    Kam, you do know we are a Republic and not a democracy, do you not?

    You are aware that the reason the founders set it up that way was so that mob rule (their words) would not abridge nor over rule the rights of a minority?

    You might want to actually read the Constitution, and maybe a bit of history.

  • Kam

    Jet, I am not a Christian. Too, I favor same-sex marriage.

    However, I think that you cannot force democracy down the throat of Iraqis with a gun, and I think you cannot force acceptance of gay marriage down the throat of the public with a judge’s gavel. I am not alone in my views against using force as the method to attain my desires. Winning over another person to my viewpoint is more effective than attacking that person, or slandering him, or hauling him off to court. The power of persuasion and changing the hearts and minds of people is the best way to accomplish change.

  • Kam, you must allow the love of Jesus into your heart and be born-again in his wisdom and acceptance.

    There is no other way

    Bless you

  • Having criticized Richard Rothstein on the other side of this issue because I thought his article was shrill and self-defeating, I have to say this one is far, far worse. It’s a despicable distortion, a really ugly piece of doublespeak.

    If Mr. McKissick were covering the subject fully and honestly, he’d have to note that a majority of Americans are now unopposed to civil unions for same-sex couples. The poorly conceived and reactionary ballot initiatives in those 28 states rarely or never asked voters about civil unions. Thus the American people have not “spoken loudly” through the ballot initiatives – they haven’t been asked the full question. The writers of the initiatives are always extremists who agree with Mr. McKissick, and have no interest whatsoever in fairness.

    McKissick begins by citing a case of gay couples unhappy with the ‘second-class’ status of civil unions as opposed to marriage. This distinction will have to be decided in court; it’s possible that pushing it too hard in states like Connecticut and New Jersey may cause more reactionary ballot initiatives elsewhere. Some of us believe the Vermont/CT/NJ model has the best chance of being widely accepted across the country, and should be treated favorably rather than with protest and legal action. But this is an issue to be honestly discussed among those who disagree – it doesn’t prove anything about gay people wanting something other than equal rights, as the nasty and meaning-twisting first sentences of the article imply.

    But then McKissick later in his article lumps civil unions and marriages together, finding them equally threatening. He doesn’t bother to point out his own inconsistency, of course – but he manages to make clear how repugnant the idea of sharing the world with us homos is to him.

    People who want to declare their unions are taking a positive step, favorable to society. And committed couples who want to claim the legal and financial privileges accorded to married men and women are seeking fairness, not disruption. Claiming that they are destroying institutions in the process is bigoted rhetoric, not honest analysis.

  • Kam

    I actually have read the Constitution, and do know a bit of history as well. The framers of the Constitution certainly tried to address the tyranny of the majority; however, it should not be replaced with the tyranny of the minority. The checks and balances of our 3 branch system is intended to move the country forward without one branch ruling over the others. Yet here, it seems that the lawmaking branch, the legislature, has been replaced by the judiciary in the writing of laws. For over 200 years in America, and many more before, marriage was conceived as between a man and a woman. So, where is the republic aspect of having 2 people decide to change what has been accepted by the vast majority?

    Countries around the world, and States here, are addressing the issue again as it relates to gay people. It is a process. But the process, in my view, needs to be recognized as a change that society wants to undertake, rather than as the whim of a couple of judges. After all, two other judges could just go the other way next month, right?

  • D’oh

    Kam, I will lay it out for you, since you do appear to be quite sincere.

    The decisions you are bemoaning were made by the Supreme Courts of those states, whose job it is to rule on the state constitutionality of things brought before them. These are NOT individual judges, but a full “supreme court” as outlined in those state constitutions.

    In each of the cases, they ruled that denying these rights to individuals due to sexual preferences was unconstitutional.

    This was done legally and in accordance to the constitutions of the states in question.

    No “activist” bullshit, just straight up decisions rendered by state supreme courts as per their state constituional duties outlined in said documents.

    That’s their jobs.

    Not “two judges”, but Supreme Courts of the states.

    Your statements about 200 year traditions of marriage are just as wrong as the arguments used about slavery and women’s rights to vote, among others.

    Our Constitution is NOT about “tradition” or the sanctity of words, it’s about the rights of each and every individual under the law.

  • Kam

    Decisions split 5-4 are one judge decisions, and two of them make two one judge decisions. Chief Justice Warren in Brown v. Bd. of Ed. strongly felt that a unanimous decision in a case of this sort was extremely important since he knew he was changing the direction of a substantial part of the country. He worked very hard to make it a unanimous decision.

    I certainly know that Supreme courts of NJ and MA legitimately reached their decsions, but the Supreme Courts of other states reached opposite decisions, so, in my view, this still remains two one-judge decisions.

    Had NJ and MA come up with unanimous decisions, things would be different.

    The Great State of Virginia is now at odds with The Great State of Vermont. Also, the Great State of Rhode Island is now at odds with the Great State of Massachusetts. Both problems are the dissolution of relationships legal in one state but not the other.

    Again, in my opinion, I agree with the Chief Justice that unanimous decisions in cases of this sort carry weight. There is no question that the country is divided. In just about the 4 most liberal states: NY, NJ, MA and CA, there were 2 in favor of gay marriage and 2 not in favor.

    Which brings me way back to the valid point made in the article (note, professionally, I often need to deal with the family laws of marriage, divorce and inheritance among the several states). Forcing State Two to amend its soverign relationship laws to accomodate State One’s changes poses a myriad of problems, and these just can’t be resolved with court decisions flying all over the place.

    At the moment, I do not want to see this question get to the Bush Supreme Court, do you?

  • D’oh

    No problems in those states being REQUIRED to accept the rulings of other courts. This is also covered under the Constitution under the “equal protection” clause.

    As for it reaching the current SCOTUS, it should ,and it probably will soon. Then we will have the decisions in writing and can more accurately determine the suitability of the Justices.

    I might wish for unanimous decisions, but they are the exception rather than the rule. I am also aware that big changes take time. We still have much progress to make in the realm of racism and sexism, but those laws are on the books and recognized.

    This is just another step in the growth and maturity of our Republic.

  • Jason

    Kam, I guess it comes down to these questions:

    1.) Is Marriage about joining someone you love or joining a man and a woman?
    2.) Is Marriage a civil right as put forth in Loving v Virginia?
    3.) We have determined that gender is a classification, and it is illegal to discriminate based on gender. Now you want to limit people from choosing life partners based on gender. How is that not a violation of the above statute?

    Anyway, there are more, but I would rather see those three answered before we delve into the more convoluted equality discussions.

  • Kam

    Are you so sure they are REQUIRED? A careful reading of the Constitution’s Article IV and the 14th Amendments “equal protection” clause says:

    “Article IV
    Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

    “Amendment XIV Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    So, it is quite possible that Article 4 gives to Congress the right to decide how one state must relate to the acts, records and procedings of other states. Also, the 14th Amendment says that STATES can’t make laws, yadda yadda yadda, equal protection.

    The Constitution therefore can be read to say that Congress can do what States cannot, and that Congress can make laws that prescribe how one state interacts with another state’s laws.

    Congress went one step further, and passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 which attempts to specifically forbid gay marriage from being recognized in Federal questions, and allows states to recognize or not recognize gay marriage.

    DOMA has not yet been tested, but again, do you want Bush’s Supreme Court ruling on this? Or perhaps there is a better way to change society’s views.

  • Kam

    Jason, my opinion on your questions:
    1. Impossible to answer. People go around joining or not joining, marrying or not marrying with and without love.
    2. Whether or not it is a civil right, will depend on whether the involved judges say it is. In my view, it is not listed among any of the lists of rights in the constitution or elsewhere, so maybe no.
    3. Your logic is faulty. Gender is a classification, but so is occupation a classification. Laws are written regarding specific classifications. So, it is illegal to discriminate in housing based on race, but not on occuaption. A landlord can legally refuse to rent to an attorney because he is an attorney, but not to a black person because he is black.

    Oddly enough, here in the Federal Government, we cant discriminate in hiring based upon sexual orientation. But you can in private industry because SO is not a protected classification, and our protection here is based on an executive order.

    As far as the rest, in my view, people can live and love with whomever they choose as long as the opposite partner is of an age of consent. I care not about the gender or race of any two people who can make each other happy.

    However, marriage is a legal establishment, and the power of the state is often called in to resolve matters. Marriage burdens individuals, businesses, and the state with requirements. The state must often get involved in resolving issues between married people.

    I have 2 questions.

    1. Can anyone marry just anyone (or many), and therefore decide to bring the power of the state upon the rest of the citizens? Or is it the state who decides which relationships it choses to support and enforce?

    2. Can I marry my son (I don’t have a son) and force my employer (Uncle Sam) to pay surviving spouse benefits from my pension for the rest of my son’s life? Can I just put anyone I want on my health insurance? Can I go around inheritance taxes and IRA laws and property rights just by marrying my son?

    Who decides what is a marriage that the state will enforce, each person, or the state?

  • July 2003 Gallup poll:
    57% oppose legalizing same-sex civil unions
    40% favor civil unions

    March 2004 Gallup poll:
    the figures are reversed –
    42% opposed
    54% in favor
    59% oppose same-sex marriage

    Nov. 2006 Quinnipiac poll:
    “If you had to choose in your state, which would you prefer: allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions or allowing same-sex couples to get married?”
    Civil unions: 44%
    Marriage: 24%
    Neither: 27%

    There’s much more of this data, from 2004 to the present, and from many different sources on this page. Fascinating, and it helps avoid throwing around nonsense instead of facts.
    Note: the Gallup numbers came from MSNBC.

  • Baronius

    Kam, congratulations! You found the one raw nerve on Blogcritics. You could support gun rights for infants and write love poems to Castro, and someone on the site would agree. But when it comes to gay activism there is no diversity of opinion around here. You either stand with the Blogcritics, or you’re shunned to the wastelands along with 70% of the US population and 99% of human history. See ya there!

  • Legal does not mean approved and sanctioned. Lots of things that society frowns upon are perfectly legal, such as ethnic slurs, mysogynistic remarks, pro-anorexia/bullimia literature, pornography, abortion, most types of gambling, tobacco smoking (in places where it doesn’t violate the clean air rights of others), and morbid obesity.

    Legal doesn’t mean acceptable and the very idea of outlawing taboos that do not infringe upon the rights of others is patently ridiculous.

    As for the same-sex marriage issue, it is selfish and cruel — not to mention untenable — to arbitrarily relegate homosexuals to second-class citizenship when doing so serves absolutely no rational purpose whatsoever.

  • Jason

    1.) Impossible to answer. People go around joining or not joining, marrying or not marrying with and without love.
    —— Then what EXACTLY are you trying to preserve when you disallow homosexuals from the institution? If marriage has no meaning in your opinion, what is the problem?

    2.) Whether or not it is a civil right, will depend on whether the involved judges say it is. In my view, it is not listed among any of the lists of rights in the constitution or elsewhere, so maybe no.
    —– Cheif Justice Warren thought it was, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” And, if it is, how do you decide to withhold it from a select few based on their gender?

    3. Your logic is faulty. Gender is a classification, but so is occupation a classification. Laws are written regarding specific classifications. So, it is illegal to discriminate in housing based on race, but not on occuaption. A landlord can legally refuse to rent to an attorney because he is an attorney, but not to a black person because he is black.
    —– Gender is a protected classification, occupation is not. To tell a person that they can not marry someone based on their race is, in this day and age, absurd, as would it be if we said that you can not marry the person of your choice based on their religion, their nation of origin, etc. BUT, you find it just dandy to say no based on gender.

    I think that YOU answered your first question in your answer to my first question. The answer, right now, is, as you put it, yes, unless you are of the same sex.

    And why are you bringing incest into this? Can you currently marry your daughter and do what you proposed? Please. Now, if you ask, can you marry Britney Spears for a few hours, sure! But you can’t marry Tom Cruise, not even for ten minutes.

  • Baronius–

    Please take a look at #24 and try to get the numbers right, if nothing else.

    Does this bother you so much because you’re an anti-gay bigot? Or for some other charming reason?

  • E

    Why not treat marriage just like confirmation (a ceremony in the Christian Church)?

    Its something done privately between a group of people but – THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T GET INVOLVED!!!

    If you want to leave something to somebody – make a will. If you want to own property with somebody, there are legal documents for that too.

    If I can find a church that wants to marry me to whoever or whatever I want to marry, and a congregation that wants to accept it – fine… if others don’t want to accept it – thats fine too.

    Now to head off the argument: “what if someone can find a church that allows an adult to marry a minor – then what?” think through the comparison to the confirmation ceremony:

    The gov’t has its own criterion when it considers individuals as adults depending on the circumstance (18 for some things, 21 for others, etc). Private ceremonies are allowed to confirm anyone at whatever age they want… hell a church is allowed to confirm a 5 year old and the church can call him an adult, but this in no way supersedes the GOV’Ts laws. This 5-year old can’t now drink or drive or vote. The gov’t doesn’t care at all what little group calls them an adult.

    So why not apply the same thing to “marriage”. You and your church can call people whatever they want for whatever reasons they want… but this doesn’t give you the right to supersede gov’t laws against statutory rape (which infringes upon rights of minors who are deemed not capable of making their own decisions).

    And sure… if a church wants to marry multiple people, (polygamy).. why not? Its already legal to have multiple partners… heck, orgies are legal too. If I can find a group of people that wants to call the whole group of us “married” why not let our little group do so?

  • Baronius

    Handy, I used Drew’s numbers instead of yours. I’m most comfortable with the figure of 99% historical opposition, and I hope you don’t mind my rounding it downward.

    If I seem frustrated, it’s because everything on this site finds its way back to homosexuality, and that’s the subject on which some otherwise decent authors become irrational. I know, I know, this article is about gay rights, so I shouldn’t be stunned to read comments about homosexuality. I guess I showed up on this thread looking for a fight, and that’s immature of me.

    As for my bigotries, I can’t think of a way of responding that doesn’t violate the “no personal attacks” rule.

  • Kam

    Jason, we are not talking about gender, we are talking about sexual preference. The EEOC protected classes are: race, sex, religion, national origin and age, and sometimes disability. Sexual preference is not listed.

    Rather than put the onus on me to preserve, usually, the onus is on the one who seeks change to support it. It is a common thing in law to decide who has the burden.

    Chief Justice Warren said what he said about marriage, but it was not same-sex marriage, so it is a bit wrong to try to quote him while not really quoting him.

    And I am not bringing incest into this. Incest is about sex with a relation. I never indicated that I would have sex with my non-existant son, only that I would be able to transfer all of the perquisites of marriage from my wife to my son, or to whomsoever I choose. So it isn’t about sex.

    Let me pose this to you, How many people can I marry at the same time, and bestow my marital perquisites on them? What is you basis? Why only 1? Why only 10?

    Why can’t I just take every benefit society bestows on the husband-wife relationship, and cause society to bestow that on anyone and everyone I chose.

    For that matter, why should I let society make me do anything about my marriage? Why can’t I divorce my wife of 33 years, and leave her destitute? I should be able to anything and everything I want regarding marriage and the whole world must go along.

  • Arch Conservative

    When considering Handy’s numbers along with the fact that every time the American people have had the opportunity to ban gay marriage with a ballot initiative they have done so except for one state… I would say that the majority of the American people are not homophobic or harboring hatred for gays but rather they just view marriage as a time honored tradition in our society that consists of the union of a man and a women.

    In a nutshell….America wants to see gay people allowed to be together and be happy by entering civil unions but it also wants to protect traditional marriage as one man and one woman.

    If the both sides could just meet in the middle I’d be a hell of a lot happier as there probably wouldn’t be nearly so many fucking gay marriage articles on BC!

  • Jason

    No, Kam, you are talking homosexuality, the rest of us are talking about the institution of marriage.

    Please, pardon the pun, divorce yourself from that notion.

    You are trying to force others to discriminate based on gender. As I stated previously, people would never allow someone to discriminate on their choice of partner due to race, religion, creed, color, national origin, etc.

    Stop looking at this as a gay issue, start looking at it as an equal rights issue, that is what it is, the gay thing … it is simply a side issue.

  • shane

    1.This is the same retarded arguments bigots put up when it came to a Black man marring a white women.
    Just because most of the public thought it was wrong at the time doesn’t make it right for them to put a law on the books against it.

    2. Married couples don’t sign anything swearing they are going to raise the “next generation”. A lot of couples never have kids and are still allowed to marry.

    3. Whats better? Two loving gay women raising children, or a pedophile married to women raising children? Last I checked, there is no law on the books saying a convicted pedophile can’t get Married. Why dont we put energy towards that goal to save the “next generation”?

  • What many don’t understand is that same-sex marriage is not the goal. It’s just a foot in the door. Once the door can’t be closed again, you can’t keep the rest of the agenda out.

    Look at what is happening to the schools in the only state with gay marriage!

    Young children are being indoctrinated to reject the values of their parents. One parent, who was brave enough to complain, was arrested and hauled off to jail.

  • D’oh

    And what Vincenzo, and those like him, just don’t understand is that it’s about equal rights under the law.

    You know, American values.

  • STM

    I believe the only way around this is to have the federal government urge (or pressure) or the Supreme Court order all states to adopt identical next of kin rights, the right to civil unions, right to access estates in case of separation or death, etc.

    The world marriage, however, in my view, is just a word. If all states recognise civil same-sex unions, then the relationships become marriages under common law anyway.

    Let’s face it: most of Amerca doesn’t want gay “marriage” – in other words, use of the term.

    But I suspect most of America is not opposed to same-sex common law marriages carrying the same rights as any other marriage, common-law or otherwise.

    And in a democracy, majority thinking DOES count if in the process it is not breaching a minority’s civil rights.

    In this case, championing civil unions with full rights but being opposed to use of the term marriage is not a breach of anyone’s civil rights.

  • Jason

    “Young children are being indoctrinated to reject the values of their parents. One parent, who was brave enough to complain, was arrested and hauled off to jail.”

    Yes, children are being shown that their peers whose parents are in LEGAL gay marriages are normal! Let’s burn the teachers! And while we are at it, let’s burn the books! And let’s not stop there, let’s burn Cinderella, I mean it is all about heterosexual sex, children should not be reading that filth … oh, wait, it isn’t? Perhaps you should read the books you bitch about before you jump to conclusions.

    Or, better yet, let’s just go out and do something illegal and get arrested and spin the arrest so that slack jawed morons think he was put in jail for his views, not for trespassing.


  • Col. Mustard

    “it also wants to protect traditional marriage as one man and one woman.”

    Exactly, so it will be safe for people like Britney Spears and Pam Anderson and all the reality shows that pair up strangers, right?

    Where you protectionists go wrong, is that straights have already screwed up marriage so there’s nothing to protect. Gays couldn’t damage it anymore if they tried.

  • Zedd

    Col. Mustard

    Whether its a good marriage or a bad marriage, its still a marriage…. a union between a man and a woman.

    I am sure that there will be good civil unions and bad ones. As “sensational” as a lot of people in the gay community are, lets be slow to speak. You know there will be a lot of weird things going on

    Take the civil union, if you are serious about sharing your life with a partner with all of the legal rights that married people have, and be happy. The point is the love and the relationship, secondary are the rights (which come with the civil union), last of all should be wanting to be called married like heteros.

  • Zedd

    STM sez: In this case, championing civil unions with full rights but being opposed to use of the term marriage is not a breach of anyone’s civil rights.

    Wheeeew! Thank you!!!. I thought I had wondered into the Twilight Zone for a minute.

  • troll

    *…championing civil unions with full rights but being opposed to use of the term marriage is not a breach of anyone’s civil rights.*

    true – it’s merely a breach of common sense in an attempt to maintain bogus distinctions between hetero and homo sexual relationships

    personally I’d prefer that the word be reserved to describe such relationships as the union of peanut butter and jelly

    but legally ‘marriage’ is whatever statute says it is at a given time: it makes perfect sense for gay people to lobby to make sure that any law that mentions ‘marriage’ covers their relationships (and this without worrying about some posited ‘natural language’ in which ‘marriage’ so obviously means the union man and woman)

  • ss

    From the original post, talking about the right to privacy extended to gays:

    “The Supreme Court covered their rights to conduct their special behavior under the un-enumerated right to privacy several years ago in its Lawrence vs. Texas decision.”

    Several years ago.
    You mean 2003?
    It took until 2003 for one branch of government to decide freedom of the individual extended to sexual activity in their own home-
    Even for gays-
    and those damn gays aren’t grateful?
    Clearly, they have a problem.

    Special behavior.
    You mean sex?
    Those damn gays want special laws that allow them to have sex?

  • Zedd

    troll sez: true – it’s merely a breach of common sense in an attempt to maintain bogus distinctions between hetero and homo sexual relationships

    They are very distict. The dynamics alone between the genders are different than with same sex relationships. The physical differences and the results of those differences should be noted because they are significant and relevant for things like the propagation of the human species.

    So yes they are different things, so we call them different things.

  • troll

    and these valid differences are best communicated by using the appropriate adjective…they do not require restrictions on the use of the noun ‘marriage’

    legal definitions aside – there are barren marriages and bountiful ones…open ones and exclusive ones…why not gay marriages and straight ones – ?

  • Clavos

    legal definitions aside – there are barren marriages and bountiful ones…open ones and exclusive ones…why not gay marriages and straight ones – ?

    Why not indeed?

    Excellent point.

  • Zedd

    Why not Clavos?

    Because they don’t involve a man and a woman. You know that. Why ask.

  • Col. Mustard

    “Why ask.”

    To see if you really are as ignorant as your comments illustrate.

    There are different dynamics between mixed marriges and those of the same race. Should we not allow them either? And what is this nonsense about the propagation of the species? Gay marriages won’t be mandatory and the planet has plenty of humans, so I think we should be safe for a few years.

    To think there is any difference between a civil union and a marriage is just as foolish as claiming there is a difference between a child and a kid. Love and commitment are no different between hetero and homo relationships.

    Will was right, “A rose by any other name.”

  • Zedd


    Your question suggests that there is a racial component in the defenition of marriage. There isnt.

    The begining point is that marriage is defined as a union between a male and a female (short ones, tall ones, dark ones, light ones, straght haired, curly haired… etc.).

    I am not sure why that point gets lost.

    I will repost to you what I posted on the other board regarding the same topic, from a different angle.

    This is how I think

    Author states that not allowing gays the right to use the term marriage to define their union is equivalent to the “separate but equal” designation that was made for blacks in the mid 20th century.

    1. Separate but equal was illegal because the constitution mandated liberty for all humans. Blacks are human, Whites are human, Asians are human, so are Native Americans, Australoids are human and any combination of those groups is human. Separating the races limits liberty by limiting access to what the other race(s) had access to, so it was not constitutional.

    2. The goal of homosexuals is liberty. Civil unions should provide the same rights that heterosexuals have.

    3. Those rights grant access to the same benefits and institutions that heterosexuals have access to. This point makes CUs unlike “separate but equal”.

    4. Marriage is a CU, there are others such as mergers, partnerships, etc. The other civil unions are not weakened by not being called marriages. What strengthens them is the definition of what is granted by law for those unions.

    If CUs provide access to EVERYTHING in the SAME WAY that marriage currently provides, then it is NOT like separate but equal, because it does not limit access to anything. The author’s argument is flat.

    Civil rights did not grant Blacks respect. Blacks are still denied access to private places. The law does not grant RESPECT.

    The issue of the word “marriage” is mute. Its use will not grant gays respect, However what makes marriage beneficial is the fact that it is a CU. CUs are what grant the desired affects not the name of the union.

    Now about the name….. The name marriage is defined as the union of a man and a women. Gays don’t fit that category so the name of their CU should be different.

    The last point is the most glaring so I chose to begin with the fact that nullified the entire argument instead of going through the entire process step by step.

    When I evaluate information, I immediately and automatically go through this process in my head (I believe its called logic).

    I left out a few more steps in my processing because I don’t feel like going through them… but you should get the idea.

  • Zedd

    Col sez: Love and commitment are no different between hetero and homo relationships.

    Who said they were? That is not the topic though is it.

    I thought the topic was civil rights and equal access under the law. CUs if they are fought for and defined properly should grant equal access….

    Marriage does not mean love and commitment. It just means a union between a man and a woman.

    No the difference between same genders and mixed genders is not like a kid and a child.

    Its breast, ovaries, periods, vaginas, PMS, pregancies, menapause (hot flashes), female world view, gender bias, vs. penises, testes, midlife crises, denseness (he he), shorter life span, prostates, male world view, gender bias, and many more… all of these factors have many implications for savings, insurance, health care, etc that will be different for same gender couples. This applies for all races btw.

  • Jason


    Again, I repeat, you are trying to force others to discriminate based on gender. As I stated previously, people would never allow someone to discriminate on their choice of partner due to race, religion, creed, color, national origin, etc.

    You would never say to a potential groom, I am sorry, you are catholic, you can only marry someone who is muslim. You would never say, I am sorry, you are Caucasian, you must marry someone who is mongoloid.

    Why do you seek to limit based on gender?

    Stop looking at this as a gay issue, start looking at it as an equal rights issue, that is what it is, the gay thing … it is simply a side issue.

  • troll

    *The name marriage is defined as the union of a man and a women.*

    by whom – ? legal statue (which is what matters practically speaking and can be changed through legislation) or the OE – ?

    read your dictionary carefully – the ones I’ve seen refer to ‘persons’ and the husband/wife relationship (gender based yes as in master/slave – but that’s another story) – no direct mention of ‘man’ and ‘woman’

    my favorite dictionary definition is the gender free ‘intimate union’

    adjust your dress Zedd – your missionary zeal is showing as is your circular reasoning

  • Zedd

    troll = by law

  • Zedd

    Excuse the last hic up


    By law



    Social scientists

    The medical community

    Religious insititutions


    Because that is what it is and has been since YOU can remember, since the conception of this country, since the establishment of the British state, since the druids and before…..

    Why are you asking something that you know the answer for. Its as if you are going to come up with a lucid response because of my answer….. But NOPE. You’ll just ask the same question in another way. BTW that is why I keep saying the same thing. You keep asking the same question.

    Volumes and volumes of books and other important publications in the various disciplines that I have mentioned refer to marriage, meaning husband and wife. They are not referring to same gender couples. Do we go and correct the texts?

    It is a word (one that already has a use). It’s not RIGHTS. Go for the RIGHTS and stop playing around.

  • Zedd

    Jason sez: Again, I repeat, you are trying to force others to discriminate based on gender. As I stated previously, people would never allow someone to discriminate on their choice of partner due to race, religion, creed, color, national origin, etc.

    Jason that makes no sense. If marriage is a union between man and woman, how is any gender beign discriminated against?

    Also since you made this ridiculous statement even it really has to barring on this topic at all, I will endulge you.

    PEOPLE discriminate on everything. Perhaps you are a white male and you have less of a sense of this. But YEP, PEOPLE discriminate on EVERYTHING includig hair color and eye color… You cant legislate against PEOPLE discriminating…… However this point has nothing to do with our discussion.

    The issue is not about people discriminating, its with civil rights and equal access.

    Besides how does me wanting to be called male because men are less discriminated against, or wanting to be called Caucasian because Caucasians are less discriminated against, make me a man or a White person. It DOESN’T. Maleness is defined by certain biological properties and visual properties. Whiteness is defined by certain visual realities and biological certainties (for the most part). Well mixed gender unions have certain visual properties, biological and psycological properties that are unique to that union, hence he distict name.

  • Zedd

    I should say that you cant legislate against people discriminating on personal issues that dont involve access to legally defined accomodations…. but it was too long. But I have learned that on this blog you cant assume an implicid knowledge of anything….. People argue the minor points when they have nothting else to say

  • Obviously you people don’t know anything about how gays “propogate” and produce children. It’s not by recruiting little boys and girls either as the bible pounders would have you believe.

    How can two lesbians both be the biological mother of their child? Eggs are removed from one lesbian, fertilized using donated sperm from a gay friend, and then implanted in the OTHER lesbian. It’s one lovers egg, carried to term in the other’s womb.

    With gay men, sperm is harvested from both lovers, mixed and then a lesbian sarrogate friend carries it to full term. Technically only one lover is the father, but as long as a parternity/DNA test isn’t done, they won’t know. This is usually done as an exchange agreement where the lesbian agrees to carry a child for the male gay couple in exchange for them providing sperm for the female couple.

    This eliminates the hassle and outrage at a gay couple trying to adopt a baby.

    Interestingly enough, there’s a lot less incodence of the sarogate suddenly changing her mind in gay arrangements, and the couples both adopt the baby, which means that even if the lovers split up, an adoption can’t be undone.

    Oddly enough not many people think of this, but two adults can also adopt eachother as a form of estabilishing an heir, which is much more permanent and can’t be undone either.

  • Jason


    Zedd, without making a personal attack, do you even understand exactly what protected classes mean? From your comments it does not seem that you do.

    A protected class is a group of people who share common characteristics and are protected from discrimination and harassment.

    The most common are:
    1.) Race
    2.) Color
    3.) Religion
    4.) Creed
    5.) Sex (gender)
    6.) National Origin
    7.) Age
    8.) Disability
    9.) Veteran Status

    And slowly, Sexual Orientation
    (Others include on the basis of having children, etc)

    Now, all the states have various laws about the first nine, and those are all I care about.

    You can not force people to discriminate based on those nine protected classes.

    Yes, absolutely, discriminate based on hair color, number of piercings, occupation; those are not protected classes.

    Sex is. You can not discriminate based on gender. I can not fire you for being a male, I can not give you a raise for being male, I can not fire you for being a male. More, I can not force others to discriminate based on your being a male either.

    But that is what you want to do. You want to tell someone who is trying to get married to the person that s/he loves that they have to discriminate based on gender. They can not choose 1/2 (yeah, close enough) of the population, simply because of a genetic quirk, a random event, that that person has the same gender as they do.

    That is discrimination at it’s very essence. And that is illegal.

  • Zedd


    The discrimination that you are talking about is not based on sex (gender). There are only two genders and I don’t think that they are being discriminated against when it comes to marriage since it involves male and female. I think you were trying to say “sexual orientation”. I also don’t quite know why you are bothering to list the protected classes. Could this be something that you just learned and feel proud of your new found knowledge??…. who knows. If you understood what my background was, I think you would be slow to speak about what I do or don’t understand about this topic.

    You see again, the point is not that gays should get civil rights, FOR YOU is it? You are saying the issue is about discrimination when it realy isnt. You will get FULL rights with a civil union. YOU WILL. Its as if you almost don’t care about the RIGHTS. You want to be able to SAY you are MARRIED.

    You see, you don’t have an example of a gay civil union. The only example you have of a state sactioned love relationship, is marriage. You are born and have lived in a heterosexual world and what you know is what heteros do. You want marriage because it is what YOU know to be the legitamising format for a relationship. You like the romantic, traditional and emotional aspects of the notion of marriage. You really aren’t worked up about civil rights, its clear. Because you know that a civil union will grant you those rights. THAT is the truth because your rantings make no sense other wise.

    You see the people who are afraid of change are gays. YOu are afraid of a new world wich fully incorporates gays as an equal part of it; with a set of institutions that are legitamate and not underground, that support and enable gays to live freely. You want the world to stay the same and gays to just sort of melt in. The truth is, gay unions are new so there will be new designations, traditions, norms, names that will be developed to accomodate this major change in society.

    In 50 years gay kids will expect to have a union (whatever it will be called). They will wed, there will be a party, crying and etc. If the name is “parriage”, they will have parriages and wont think a thing about it. It is you who knows only marriages, who is afraid of the real change that you are asking for.

    You just cant imagine a world were a union is anything but marriage because that is all you know, because there have not been civil unions between homosexuals in our history. SIMPLE.

  • Zedd


    On the issue of discrimination, when you attain civil union status, you will be protected under the law, YES. But you won’t be protected from jerks. I don’t understand where the WORD marriage comes in and what difference it has on you being or not being discriminated against.

    Whether you are called married or parried or c.u.’d, you and your spouse will still suffer discrimination from bigots. You will and there is nothing the law can do about it, if it is un-provable. Like I said, and you missed this Jason, people discriminate on any and everything. You can’t stop them when it is difficult to prove, and most discrimination is difficult to prove. African Americans got their civil rights 40 years ago, but still get discriminated against everyday.

    The WORD married will not keep you from being discriminated.

    Now what was your last post about? You do see that you were on about nothing.

  • Jason

    No, no matter what you say, it seems that you are the one who refuses to see. One can lead a horse to water and all that.

    But, for the sake of enlightenment, let’s try one more time.

    If you were going to hire a new manager and I told you that you could only hire females, would that be discrimination? Even though there are only two genders? Of course it is.

    What if I wanted to enter into a business contract, would it be okay with you to exclude all members of one sex (not orientation, sex, as in gender)? Would never be allowed. Calls of discrimination would abound.

    BUT, in the case of a marriage contract, simply because of tradition, we accept discrimination here. THIS contract limits specifically by sex (gender, not orientation – in case you are confused).

    No, if you can, with your vaunted background, debate the point. Don’t just tell me I am wrong and go off in some irrelevant direction telling me that separate but equal is equal, show me the error in my logic.

    Here, I will even give you my two premises. Prove either wrong and my conclusion will be invalid.


    Show me that marriage is not a contract.
    Show me that we are not limiting the members of that contract based on gender.


    Yes, I am very much pro-gay-marriage. I am one of those horrid people who want less laws and less government. Why make up a new classification and write up new laws when old ones will suffice? (don’t bother answering that until you show me where my logic is wrong).

  • Jason

    Zedd, on your second statement, are you saying that because people of differing ‘races’ are still discriminated against, the civil rights movement was a waste? that they should not have happened?

    Of course you are not. That would be stupid.

    But so is asking why anyone fights for anything. I know about discrimination. But don’t you think it is right and just for people to fight to be with their loved ones when they are dying? Laws have changed, and that is a start. Attitudes will take longer.

    But please, don’t bother with this post until you have deconstructed my prior post.

  • Zedd


    I am going to end this because its silly.

    Look I think that if you have ALL of your rights you are no longer discriminated against according to the law (atleast). A civil union provides that.

    I think that calling yourselves married is stupid because you are not a union of a man and a women. Like I am not white and I am not a man regardless if they have had all the rights over our history, I cant call myself either. Because I am just not either one of them. Gay couples are not a couple consisting of a man and a women so they cant be called married. PERIOD.

    I think calling yourselves married will not give you civil rights. They will come when you get legal rights. Civil Unions will get you what you need, legally.

    I think what you really seek is for everyone to see you as the same as heterosexuals and you are in some ways and not in others but either way, you cant legislate that. I think that many gays think that legalizing marriage will solve all of the ills of their past, regarding not fitting in, it wont.

    Whats funny about this is MEN clammering to get married. We’ll see what will happen after the dust is settled when the rights are granted what the ratios of weddings is for lesbians vs. gay males.


  • Jason

    No, it is not silly, it is the truth.

    It is fact, it is not something you can argue.

    So instead of proving me wrong, take your ball and go home.


    When the light of truth is shined on the lies of discrimination, discrimination withers and dies, as do the arguments of those who try to remain blind to the said discrimination.

    I would like to say it has been enlightening, but it has not been, it has been one-sided.

  • Zedd


    Let it go. There is no ball. We are just going around and around and its time to stop.

    Pull yourself together man. Its over.

  • Jason

    Zedd, you have yet to show that I am wrong, you have simply stated something totally irrational and claimed superiority and then, when the facts were against you, you bail.

    You are welcome to cut and run, I am used to it with people like you.

    Merry Christmas, Zedd.

  • On the issue of discrimination, when you attain civil union status, you will be protected under the law, YES. But you won’t be protected from jerks.

    From what I’ve observed nothing will protect you from jerks, and certainly not government or a law.


  • Bliffle

    The law against going thru a red light protects me from jerks who would do so otherwise.

    But even so I keep a careful eye peeled for the miscreant.

  • It’s people like Drew and articles like this that keep gays constantly on guard in what’s supposed to be a safe and civilized world for us.

    There I just unjustifieably lumped the auther into a group.

    Catch phrases like “It’s people like you” “It’s behaviour like yours” “It’s people who chose to live lifesyles like you”. It’s all bullshit judgment of people you have no idea about, but you judge any way.

    “Special rights” is a catch-phrase designed to make people think we unjustifiably want more than everyone else. Calling our life a “Lifestyle” makes it sound like we made a choice one morning to yearn to be known as perverts, evil and little boy chasers all wearing evil lecherous lears. By stating you don’t have to approve of my “lifestyle” distracts from your claim that you have the right to approve.

    I have no idea what it’s really like to be a black man, to wonder if someone is going to burn a cross on your front lawn because you moved into an all white neighborhood in the south. I have no idea what it’s like to have a shopkeeper constantly and obviously checking or adjusting the shoplifitng mirrors the moment you walk into his corner store.

    I have no idea what it’s like to be a Jewish man in Israel who endures bombs falling near his house at any day or any time and never being able to feel his family is safe. To have leaders of countries say you belong in hell and you should be wiped off the face of the earth.

    At one time American children developed stutters because parents made them use their right hand instead of the left because in our world all “south paws” were considered evil for not being on the right hand of God, but society grew up and realized they were wrong… but only after the damage was done.

    Oh God, there goes Jet dramtizing again. No I’m not, try walking only one day in a gay man’s shoes it you think you’re man enough and you’ll see what I mean. Have you ever gone out to your car and found all four tires painted pink and flattened with FAGGOT sprayed across the windshield? Have you ever had a “friend” visit your home only to hear her tell her kids to stay only on the couch and not to get near you?
    I actually have a sister who didn’t tell her husband or her kids she even had a brother, and they never found out until my father’s funeral last April!

    It’s articles like this that make us fear, no differently than burning crosses or falling bombs.

    We just have to bide our time and hope for the best….

  • Zedd


    You see it’s not a matter of ME showing that you are wrong. You can’t be wrong by stating your DESIRE. That is what your posts have been about; what you would like to happen. I cant and don’t want to disprove them. Why would I?

    You have made no real argument. You have attempted to make an argument about discrimination but it doesn’t hold because that wont be an issue or a problem once civil unions are permitted.

    Actually its YOU who hasn’t been able to prove that civil unions would impede on anyone’s civil rights. THAT is the point of our discussion.

    Now, may we move on.

  • Zedd


    I agree the article was mean, bigoted and not to be noted.

    Who does the author think he is? Why does he get to say those things about others?

    You are right.

  • Jason

    Zedd, it is obvious from your comments that either you have not read my comments or you don’t understand my comments.

    I have not stated a desire.

    I have stated what the law is and how it is not being applied.

    My posts have NOT been about desire, please, go back and actually read them, then, if you can, follow up and answer the questions I ask. I warn you, if you follow the Socratic path, it will lead you to enlightenment.

    You have tried (and failed) to frame this conversation as a “why do homosexuals need marriage if they can have equality through civil unions”.

    But, if you go back and read the original topic, it states that there is a lawsuit suing for marriage and the author has no idea on what ground.

    I have shown you one avenue. You have yet to even produce one counter-example.

    You just want to ask why not make new laws to cover the new circumstances.


    Why make new laws to fix something that is illegal? Why not just fix what is broken?

    Show me how this institutionalized discrimination is not really discrimination and how making a new law would be superior and I will listen.

    But, so far, you have not.

    You have made a claim, you have not presented anything to back up said claim, then you want to cut and run and claim some kind of moral high-ground.

    No. You are wrong. Your reasoning (and I use the term loosely) is flawed.

    You may remove yourself from this discussion, but you remove yourself knowing that you could not back up your statements, you remove yourself knowing that your position is flawed, you remove yourself because you are holding on to an argument that you can not win.

    Merry Christmas, Zedd.

  • Zedd


    I think that that is THE problem. You see what you do as deductive reasoning. I see it as a reckless, sentimental plea for consideration and inclusion; one which I understand. But it is neither logical nor an exercise in critical thinking.

    Critical thinking involves pondering upon then evaluating the meaning of statements, scrutinizing the evidence that has been offered and calculating, and forming a conclusion about the facts.

    You sir have offered nothing to deter me from the position that I hold.

    You would do so if you would focus on effectively dismantling the definition of marriage (legally and socially) through argument. I am not sure if you really could do so because of the fact that it is what it is. However, it is the only way to force the argument in a different direction. What marriage is, IS the premise.

    I say that you have only expressed desire because you have not addressed the basic foundation of my position. You speak of matters which do not relate to that end and so it is clear that you are not serious about your conviction. You are more serious about you anger at society for IT (marriage) not being what you want it to be. You have a DESIRE for it to be something else but you have made no argument.

    You also have not made an argument for discrimination under a civil union. In Britain civil partnerships granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as civilly married heterosexual couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner’s children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one’s partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.

    With those rights in place, there is no discrimination.

    What you are calling discrimination (the right to be called marriage) is merely a desire. Your rights are not impeded upon if you NEVER get called married. You will do exactly the same things as hetero couples not being stopped in any way. You just WANT and LIKE the word married. Attaining the use of that word is not a civil right.

    Merry Christmas to you and yours :o)

  • Zedd


    Jerks will run the red light any way regardless of the law.

    Sorry kid… wrong gal.

  • Jason

    And yet, through all of your discourse, through all of your bluster, you fail, once again, to answer the most basic issue I bring up.

    Oh, sure, you bring up straw-man of English law, etc, but you fail (again? still?) to address American Law.

    Honestly Zedd, I care nothing for whatever ‘position you hold’. Your ‘position’ is irrelevant, so are your (and my) feelings, impressions, desires, etc.

    This Republic is a Republic of Laws, not of Men. We do not induce randomness into our laws, saying that some laws apply to all, some do not, for that is the essence of discrimination.

    Do to your entrenched position, your overwhelming desire to be right, you have STILL yet to come face to face with the logic that the law puts forth. We don’t need new laws when the old ones work, but are simply being ignored.

    You still choose to ignore the discrimination that is currently inherent in the system.

    Fix that and everything else will fall into place.

    Merry Christmas Zedd.

  • Zedd


    It is you who has not proven how it is discrimination not to be able to be called by a word, ANY word, especially when your characteristics don’t fit the definition of that word.

    I can not scream fowl and discrimination because I want to be called a man. I am not.

    You said: Do to your entrenched position, your overwhelming desire to be right, you have STILL yet to come face to face with the logic that the law puts forth.

    You act as if being entrenched in my stance is a crime. I could very well write the same thing to you. Its irrelevant statements like this that make you think that you are arguing a relevant point to the discussion when you are actually just arguing..

    You continued and said: We don’t need new laws when the old ones work, but are simply being ignored.

    Silly, the point is that the current laws recognize a union between a man and a woman. There aren’t laws including homosexuals that are being IGNORED. Also redrawing those laws to include homosexuals WOULD be creating new laws. Besides, it’s not as if you would have to rewrite them yourself. What’s wrong with writing a new law? You act as if it is bad to create a new law; to create a new law for a new occurrence at that…..???

  • Jason

    Let’s break this down so that you might understand.

    1.) We have a law that says that you can not discriminate based on gender. Is that true or false. It is true.

    2.) Marriage is a contract between two people that is backed by the government with certain privledges. Is this true or false? It is true.

    3.) You can not discriminate against signers of contract based on the gender of those signing the contract.

    I don’t care what your gender is, I don’t care what your sexuality is, I don’t care.

    The law says you can not discriminate based on gender. Limiting those who sign a contract by gender (ie forcing it to be opposite sex) is limiting the signers due to their gender.

    Let me put it another way. Let’s make up a relationship; Adam and Steve. Adam and Steve love eachother very much and want to get married. They can not, but Steve can marry Eve simply based on the fact she is a she and not a he. That is the definition of sex discrimination.

    So, show me that I am wrong. Don’t talk about new laws and other crap, show me that I am wrong.

    Happy Box Day, Zedd.

  • Zedd


    Adam can have a civil union with Steve and live happily ever after.

    What you are saying is that males are discriminated against because they can not get a hystorectomy, even if they want one. Well we all know what a hystorectomy is by definition. Should we change the definition of a hystorectomy because men want to call a procedure that they have, a hystorectomy. Is that discrimination? NOPE

    Your argument is dumb.
    definition= man+woman. Gay not man+woman. So no can do
    definition= removal of female reproductive parts.
    men don’t have female reproductive parts. So no can do

  • Dan

    Anyone ever wonder what those judges who don’t buckle under to secular-progressive’s moral edicts are thinking? They’re reasoning is never seriously analyzed here at BC.

    I haven’t read any legal arguments either way, but I suspect that the hold-outs are clinging to the view that anti-gay marriage legislation doesn’t violate “equal protection”.

    They might “reason” that since gay’s are just as entitled to marriage (as is currently defined) as straights, and that straights can’t have same sex marriage (even though they might legally benefit from it), then a strict interpretation of “equal protection” may not hold.

    Maybe they’re afraid of legal entaglements from any legislation that would favor a small group (gays) the right to same sex marriage, but deny the rest to that specific privilege.

    One forboding, real life example: A certain progressive corporation was inclusive enough to offer benefits to same sex partners of employees. Apparantly the deal was lucrative enough that single hetero employees started to take advantage. The perplexed company absurdly attempted a remedy by having the same sex partner sign a document attesting to an active sex life with the partner. Then lawsuits from all sides.

    I don’t vouch for that story. I think it likely. Someone else can research if you’d like.
    Still the point of strict legal interpretation remains.

    Clearly though, some variance from “strict” legal interpretation has already occured. I’ve never logically understood how Affirmative Action was made to fly. Or random DUI checkpoints. Or confiscation of property related to criminal activity. To go to extreme; why can’t I have a cool “rat patrol” jeep with a 50 millimeter machine gun mounted to the rear deck. That would be some seriously strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

  • Clavos

    I can not scream fowl

    Well try screaming fish then.

  • Jason

    Zedd, please, try to maintain a focus here.

    You can not equate a surgical procedure with a government enforced contract. Doing so in the height of … how did you put it … “Dumb”.

    If that is the best you have, you were right to want to back out of this discussion as you are in way over your head. You are debating from emotion, not intellect.

    Further, putting forth a definition over and over again, as if repitition will make you correct is just plain silly. If you had actually read my statements you would see that my whole issue is about changing said definition as it is discriminatory.

  • Jason

    Dan, thank you for responding.

    Actually, if you look it up, the Hawaii Ruling was based on Equal Protection, so an amendment was made to their constitution.

    If you read up on Lawrence v Texas, in his dissent, Scalia points out that the ruling sets precidence and Sandra Day O’Connor comments on it as well.