Local Politics - Maryland
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2012, 01:14 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 10:48 AM)Jeff Wrote:  Garriage is my name for the idea of creating a separate but equivalent institution, to avoid inter-mingling the case law, unless it is shown that doing so poses no harm.

That's my point Jeff - what leads you to believe that the creation of a separate but equal institution are preferable to consequences of extending rights to a class of people currently enjoyed by everyone else?

What are the unintended consequences of garriage? How well thought out is this proposal? How does it work? Why is it better? See what I mean?

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Seasbury's post
14-02-2012, 02:06 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 01:14 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  What are the unintended consequences of garriage? How well thought out is this proposal? How does it work? Why is it better? See what I mean?

That's my point. You are pushing your proposal formally in the legislature, while my proposal is off the cuff, tossed out in an atheist forum, yet you have no better basis for your case than mine because you haven't studied the matter. Can't you see why people don't take you seriously?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2012 02:24 PM by morondog.)
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 02:06 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(14-02-2012 01:14 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  What are the unintended consequences of garriage? How well thought out is this proposal? How does it work? Why is it better? See what I mean?

That's my point. You are pushing your proposal formally in the legislature, while my proposal is off the cuff, tossed out in an atheist forum, yet you have no better basis for your case than mine because you haven't studied the matter. Can't you see why people don't take you seriously?

I take seriously. Sugar coating it by calling it garriage and making it a separate thing fools no one. The religious will be delighted and the gays will be insulted by the implication that they are not equal. If you extend garriage to everyone then the religious will be up in arms again.

This is a clear case of discrimination without rational basis.

My 2 cents.
PS: despite opposition from many, gay marriage is legal in South Africa and the UK and many other countries and you know what? The world didn't explode, nothing fucking happened apart from the end of a pointless legal distinction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 02:06 PM)Jeff Wrote:  yet you have no better basis for your case than mine because you haven't studied the matter. Can't you see why people don't take you seriously?

Jeff - If others, beyond yourself, chimed in negatively - then I could see your point that "people don't take [me] seriously." So far, you're the only one that makes that claim.

For the last time - my basis is grounded in civil rights and equality under the law. The fact that you disagree with that premise is not my issue. You're obviously free to disagree and in my opinion to be wrong on all counts. Good chat though Smile

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 04:11 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 02:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(14-02-2012 02:06 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(14-02-2012 01:14 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  What are the unintended consequences of garriage? How well thought out is this proposal? How does it work? Why is it better? See what I mean?

That's my point. You are pushing your proposal formally in the legislature, while my proposal is off the cuff, tossed out in an atheist forum, yet you have no better basis for your case than mine because you haven't studied the matter. Can't you see why people don't take you seriously?

I take seriously. Sugar coating it by calling it garriage and making it a separate thing fools no one. The religious will be delighted and the gays will be insulted by the implication that they are not equal. If you extend garriage to everyone then the religious will be up in arms again.

This is a clear case of discrimination without rational basis.

My 2 cents.
PS: despite opposition from many, gay marriage is legal in South Africa and the UK and many other countries and you know what? The world didn't explode, nothing fucking happened apart from the end of a pointless legal distinction.

"Separate but equal" was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1954.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 06:37 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2012 06:52 PM by Jeff.)
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 03:00 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Jeff - If others, beyond yourself, chimed in negatively - then I could see your point that "people don't take [me] seriously." So far, you're the only one that makes that claim.

By you I meant those advocating your position on this issue, not you personally.


(14-02-2012 04:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  PS: despite opposition from many, gay marriage is legal in South Africa and the UK and many other countries and you know what? The world didn't explode, nothing fucking happened apart from the end of a pointless legal distinction.

It's interesting that you would bring up South Africa since they did not change their marriage act, but instead created a Civil Union Act. I'd be interested to know why it was done this way. See below.

"On 30 November 2006 the Civil Union Act came into force; despite its title it does provide for same-sex marriages. Indeed, the act allows both same- and opposite-sex couples to contract unions, and allows a couple to choose to call their union either a marriage or a civil partnership. Whichever name is chosen, the legal consequences are the same as those under the Marriage Act (which allows only for opposite-sex marriages)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights...uth_Africa
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2012, 01:43 AM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(14-02-2012 06:37 PM)Jeff Wrote:  It's interesting that you would bring up South Africa since they did not change their marriage act, but instead created a Civil Union Act. I'd be interested to know why it was done this way. See below.

"On 30 November 2006 the Civil Union Act came into force; despite its title it does provide for same-sex marriages. Indeed, the act allows both same- and opposite-sex couples to contract unions, and allows a couple to choose to call their union either a marriage or a civil partnership. Whichever name is chosen, the legal consequences are the same as those under the Marriage Act (which allows only for opposite-sex marriages)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights...uth_Africa

I am not entirely clear on why the fact that one is called the civil union act and the other the marriage act is relevant. It is explicitly stated that marriage under the civil union act is exactly equivalent legally to marriage under the marriage act, and that the partners may choose what to call it. You think it would have made a diff if it was called "marriage act amendment"?

In SA, marriage between same sex partners has been legal since 2006 (thanks for the link, I was just going by memory) and society has not been torn apart by rabid gay wolves. Ergo, you can make provision to call it garriage or civil union if you like, but calling it marriage has made no difference in South Africa - a country where anti-gay sentiment runs high.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2012, 04:53 AM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(15-02-2012 01:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  I am not entirely clear on why the fact that one is called the civil union act and the other the marriage act is relevant.

Maybe you haven't read the thread from the beginning. The relevance is that South Africa created a separate but equal licensing structure that is exactly equivalent legally to marriage under the marriage act, which is what I proposed as a solution, that I shorthand refer to as "garriage." They did this rather than amending the marriage act.

(15-02-2012 01:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  You think it would have made a diff if it was called "marriage act amendment"?

The name is not the issue, but again, they didn't amend the marriage act, so your example name doesn't make sense. A question I have is why didn't they amend the act? Why did they create a new act? The concern I have raised (by the way it's the only concern I have raised) is not that society will be torn apart by rapid gay wolves or any other gay bashing dogma you or anyone else wants to toss my way. The concern is that I haven't seen a study of whether hetero marriage case law will be adversely affected by same-sex precedents and vis versa. See the Pentagon's study on integrating openly gay personnel for an example of what I seek. I can't support changing marriage in this country without knowing that it will do no harm to the institution, so as an alternative I'd support a separate but equal licensing structure that separates the legal precedents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2012, 05:59 AM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(15-02-2012 04:53 AM)Jeff Wrote:  
(15-02-2012 01:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  I am not entirely clear on why the fact that one is called the civil union act and the other the marriage act is relevant.

Maybe you haven't read the thread from the beginning. The relevance is that South Africa created a separate but equal licensing structure that is exactly equivalent legally to marriage under the marriage act, which is what I proposed as a solution, that I shorthand refer to as "garriage." They did this rather than amending the marriage act.

There is no separate but equal. Civil union = marriage and you may choose to call your union a marriage even if gay. You can be married under 3 different acts (from reading wikipedia), but marriage legislation applies equally to anyone married under any of the three acts.

Quote:The concern I have raised (by the way it's the only concern I have raised) is not that society will be torn apart by rapid gay wolves or any other gay bashing dogma you or anyone else wants to toss my way.
My apologies. My intention was not to imply that you are anti-gay, merely to make a rather flamboyant claim that your fears seemed far-fetched.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2012, 06:55 AM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(15-02-2012 05:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  your fears seemed far-fetched.

Do you have experience in matrimonial law or family court to know what issues there may be? I do not.

Do the people proposing changes owe it to their fellow citizens to study the matter and provide the opinions of experts? I say yes.

I'm a conservative (but obviously not a religious conservative). To most of you liberals the word "conservative" is a punchline. To me it means to change things carefully. Don't jump from here to there without having thought through what happens "there." Liberals advocate faster change (let's have a word government, that will solve all of our problems!) , with a "what could go wrong?" attitude. I don't thing that's smart.

On most issues there are the 20% emotionally-charged people on each side of it. In the so-called middle are the people who don't see a clear choice they can endorse, but who are able to be persuaded by a case of reason. Make that case and your issue succeeds. For gay marriage, equal rights is part but not all of the case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: