Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Paul Martin on Gay Marriage

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Paul Martin on Gay Marriage (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/83691-paul-martin-gay-marriage.html)

Paul Martin on Gay Marriage

Paul Martin is the Prime Minister (head of government) of Canada. He roughly has the powers of the President, and Senate and House Majority leaders, all rolled into one. However, due to the 4 parties currently in the house, his government is a minority one -- it cannot pass a bill without the consent of either of the two next most powerful parties.

Today he gave a speech to the House of Commons (analagous to the US Senate and House in power) on the subject of the Civil Marriage Act, Bill C-38. It is a pretty good speech.

The Bill is going up for a free vote. (on most non-free vote, if the government is defeated the government falls, and a new election occurs). This means that members of his own party are free to vote their conscience. (traditionally, breaking party ranks in the HOC for most votes is grounds for being booted out of the party.)

Quote:

I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.

This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber, in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text – more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be.

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.

And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say: I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today – as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms.

There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. It’s important and respectful to examine them and to assess them.

First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee: that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.

In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple – in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Moreover -- and this is crucially important – the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: “The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.”

The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples.

It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite-sex couples simply so it can keep it from same-sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here.

Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage – it’s been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the Charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candor in publicly recognizing that because same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way – the only way – to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

Ultimately Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the Charter. They’re insincere. They’re disingenuous. And they’re wrong.

There is one question that demands an answer – a straight answer – from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers – yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But there’s a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations.

That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada.

The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim.

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not.

Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here – as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber – feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them.

When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights – not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights – is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated.

Why is the Charter so important, Mr. Speaker? We have only to look at our own history. Unfortunately, Canada’s story is one in which not everyone’s rights were protected under the law. We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities.

Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women "personhood" and the right to vote. There was a time, not that long ago, that if you wore a turban, you couldn’t serve in the RCMP. The examples are many, but what’s important now is that they are part of our past, not our present.

Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today.

For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law. Recall that, until the late 1960s, the state believed it had the right to peek into our bedrooms. Until 1977, homosexuality was still sufficient grounds for deportation. Until 1992, gay people were prohibited from serving in the military. In many parts of the country, gays and lesbians could not designate their partners as beneficiaries under employee medical and dental benefits, insurance policies or private pensions. Until very recently, people were being fired merely for being gay.

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

Without our relentless, inviolable commitment to equality and minority rights, Canada would not be at the forefront in accepting newcomers from all over the world, in making a virtue of our multicultural nature – the complexity of ethnicities and beliefs that make up Canada, that make us proud that we are where our world is going, not where it’s been.

Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

But much has changed since that day. We’ve heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We’ve come to the realization that instituting civil unions – adopting a “separate but equal” approach – would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We’ve confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.

And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make: Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not?

To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it.

Mr. Speaker: In the 1960s, the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s, the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was.

There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.

There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men and women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to chose Canada to be their home. Many have come here seeking freedom -- of thought, religion and belief. Seeking the freedom simply to be.

The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences.

If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians: Let us step forward.

Based off a rough headcount, the bill looks like it will pass.

Almost all NDP (left wing) party members will vote for it. The Bloc Quebecois (soverientist Quebec party) will probably vote for it. And most of the minority government Liberals are expected to vote for it.

From:
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=421
The website includes what looks like a movie feed.

I was astounded by Stephen Harper's response...

Is his position so weak that he had to dig up the Liberal's record on Jewish refugees from WWII?

Your explanations seem a bit condescending.

I mean no flame here....so please do not take it as such. But, I truly wish the United States had the forsight to address this issue as well as the Canadians seen to have. And I find it unfortunate that our leadership is tainted by political lobbyists, to the extent that it cannot do so.

the President made clear his position and lobbyed for support of a Constitutional amendment in his most recent State of the Union address. surely that counts as at least addressing the issue.

that is a damn impressive speech. i can't imagine that there is anything in there that people could argue with. although i know they will.

i sure wish someone could articulate the other side as well as he did, and answer his points... but i don't believe it's possible to.

edit: call that a challenge, or not. i've said it before, but i see no difference in the arguement between gay marriage and interracial marriage. anyone want to explain to me how the arguments are any different?

'destroys the sanctity of marriage'
'bad for the kids'
etc

crap, and more crap, methinks...

HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!

I had chills reading that. My respect for Mr. Martin just rose... I deeply support this issue, and I strongly hope it will pass.

I don't understand what he means by the following excerpt from the speech. Why would civil unions not be equal as the rest of Canadians? Why can't civil unions grant the same rights as marriage?

The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife". However civil unions may have a chance of being accepted here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Because companies could decide that while spouses get to share benefits, civil union partners do not. Hospitals could decide the same thing about visitors. Entire sections of law would have to be rewritten to address civil unions, and it likely wouldn't happen. "Separate but equal" never is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Because companies could decide that while spouses get to share benefits, civil union partners do not.

I have an idea. How about leaving the issue of company benefits and such in the hands of the people that actually pay for the benefits??

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I have an idea. How about leaving the issue of company benefits and such in the hands of the people that actually pay for the benefits??

Yes, because corporations can be trusted to do the right thing... :rolleyes:
How about, equitable coverage... period.

How about it shouldn't be the companies decision once the government realizes and makes into law the fact that there is effectively no difference between a hetero and a gay couple when they want to commit to each other for life.

Either everyone gets the benefits or noone does. Otherwise lies discrimination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Yes, because corporations can be trusted to do the right thing... How about, equitable coverage... period.

There are plenty of large companies now that have benefits for all partners, including homosexual couples. My wife works for one as well as my brother.

Let's just leave it to the market. Govt doesn't need to be involved in the healthcare game. You're a Canadian, surely you understand that with your current healthcare debacle

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Plenty but not all...

I wouldn't say we have a healthcare debacle at all... I believe *very* strongly in the idea of a Universal public healthcare system.

There are some issues but they are managable... hardly a "debacle".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

No offense, but there are people shacked up in hospitals for months at a time waiting for a nursing home room. Family practioners are having a harder and harder time finding specilist to see their patients. Three to six month wait for orthopedic surgery. The MRI and other high tech imaging gap. People are waiting up to 30 months to see for one. Higher chance of death after a heart attack. I could go on and on, but these are serious issues.

Anyways, y'all have a beuatiful country and I love it up there, but this universal thingy just ain't workin' for y'all.

The same could be said for the millions who have no health care coverage whatsoever or are getting screwed over by their HMOs in the states...

If you have the $$$ you have wonderful coverage in the US, no question... but not everyone has the $$$.

Both systems have their flaws. The thing is, if I need an operation, I don't have to mortgage my house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

How'd that market based solution stuff work for the blacks through the 1950's?
Ooh, wait, we had to pass the civil rights act in the 60's...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

True, there are too many Americans without health insurance. However, access and treatment to the system is there and hospitals do not turn people away on ability to pay.

I'm not just critictizing your system just because it's a failed socialist experiment. I'm a news junkie and I tend to read alot about this stuff, and it's absolutely breaks my heart to read stories of Canadian children waiting needlessly for life saving surgey.

Anyways, I think I've hijacked this thread enough. This is a great subject to discuss though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

How'd that market based solution stuff work for the blacks through the 1950's?
Ooh, wait, we had to pass the civil rights act in the 60's...

Show me where homosexuals are being denied access to the healthcare system. It's not happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

If we do not protect a right, then we deny it

I don't understand how the ability to sell yourself into slavery is a right. Shouldn't the government be protecting people from making these kinds of terrible decisions? I wish they would extend the same protections to heterosexuals that the homosexuals currently enjoy.

Homosexuals should count themselves lucky that they haven't been held to the ridiculous laws the rest of us are. Why they could possibly want to subject themselves to such oppresive regulations is beyond me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Show me where homosexuals are being denied access to the healthcare system. It's not happening.

Actually it is. The non-biological father or mother of a child is not a legal parent because they aren't a hetero married couple. In many states two same sex partners cannot have joint guardianship of a child. Only one does.
If this parent has the better health insurance, often he/she are unable to apply it to their child because they aren't legally family.

*raises glass to Mr. Martin

those were some brilliant words, and i hope they win the day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

That's not a denial of services issue. I've asked instances where homosexuals are denied care and access to the system based on their homosexuality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glava

Your explanations seem a bit condescending.

My apologies. I wanted to make certain the importance and strength of the person speaking where as understandable as possible to everyone, from Canada to New Zealand to China.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Seperate but equal failed in the USA.
Seperate but equal failed in South Africa.
Seperate but equal has failed in Canada.

There are constitutional issues: provinces have alot of power over marriage and laws regarding marriage, and such a reworking may not be constitutionally valid.

Secondly, seperate but equal is not equal. One could abolish the definition and recognition of marriage within the government, and replace it with civil unions -- that would be equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Martin

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Martin covered most of these points, above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Canada spends as much government money, as a percent of GDP, on our health care system as Americans do. American spends more private money than public money on health care. Canada spends 1/3 as much money privately as publicly on health care.

The US spends more money on health care paperwork than the entire Canadian government budget. Over 3% of your GDP. Canada spends less than 1% of it's GDP on health care paperwork.

Our lifespan is longer (last I checked), our cancer survival rates are better, and our heart attack survival rates are worse.

When I break an arm, I walk into a clinic or hospital, hand them my health care card, and I get fixed.

Canadian public health care isn't perfect. But it does work.

The rebuttal by the leader of the opposition, Mr. Harper:
http://www.conservative.ca/documents...216-c38-sh.pdf
I haven't finished reading it, and I'm off for the weekend, but I thought others might be interested.

Quote:

The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

People accepted it when the definition was changed so that interracial couples could marry, people accepted it when interfaith people married, people accepted it when divorced people could marry, they will eventually accept this as well.
People just have to understand that they are not losing anything by accepting other people as equals in society, you only gain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

That's not a denial of services issue. I've asked instances where homosexuals are denied care and access to the system based on their homosexuality.

You're technically correct. The child is being denied access to healthcare because of the parent's homosexuality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

You're technically correct. The child is being denied access to healthcare because of the parent's homosexuality.

Come on, you really believe that children are denied health treatment in this country?

I'm not trying to play a game of "Gotcha", I'm just making the point that homosexuals are not denied healthcare because they choose to be homosexual. I've asked for a specifc instance where homosexuals are denied treatment and you have not come up with any.

You have reduced the debate to whether I can come up with anecdotal evidence of a homosexual being denied health care because of their sexual preference, and you say you are not playing gotcha? If I were going to find a case, I would look for something about how officially homosexual men are considered more at risk for HIV and so could be denied health coverage like a smoker would be.

Why do you not want homosexuals to be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Answer that for me, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

They do have the same rights. Same rights to pursue happiness. Same rights to vote. Same rights to do as they see fit. The smae rights to leave estate property to whomever they choose. The same rights to buy a home. The same employment rights. Same educational rights. The same right as granted in the all the Constitution. Hell, they can even get married.

They just can't redefine marriage. And you know what? Straight folks can't either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

There's a huge difference-the ability to naturally have children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Not to derail this thread and all, but most americans only believe the spew the health industry down south throws at them.

You would be very hard pressed to convince about 90% of Canadians to switch to an American styled health care system regardless. That would be the most telling testimate to our Universal Health Care system.

Lastly, Canadians live longer and have a far lower infant mortality rate than Americans.

'splain that Lucy if your system is so grand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

They just can't redefine marriage. And you know what? Straight folks can't either.

Marriage is redefined by every generation. Do you remember when divorces were unheard of? There was a time when the definition of marriage didn't include interracial couples. Society is always in a constant state of self reinvention. To pretend that marriage has a carved-in-stone definition is to misunderstand how marriage is defined.

The problem is that the government put itself in the marriage game, when marriage is for most people a religious issue. All people should be entitled to government recognition of civil unions. No one should be entitled to government recongnition of marriage, unless all marriages are recognized.

We redefine things form time to time... at one point you might remember that a citizen meant a white man of a certain age who owned property... Definitions change over time as culture changes...

I suppose there were a lot of people in those days that fought the changing definition of citizen... I think we can *all* agree that that is a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Your first premise is false. How many states have anti-sodomy laws?

As for your second statement, filtherton and Charlatan have already done a fine job refuting it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Amen. Eliminating racial discrimanation is a great thing. However, equating the black experience with the gay experience (pun intended ;)), is out of whack. There are no Straights only and gays only lunch counters. There are no straight schools and gay schools (Well, not exactly. Remember NYC established it's own publiclly funded homosexual only school). The "plight" of homosexual is virtually non existant

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

The "plight" of homosexual is virtually non existant

Are you serious? If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that were the case, would the prohibition of interracial would be a nonexistent plight as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Are you serious? If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that were the case, would the prohibition of interracial would be a nonexistent plight as well?

filther, we're talking about this because the gay intifada has forced this debate on us. There is no crisis. Sorry

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

filther, we're talking about this because the gay intifada has forced this debate on us. There is no crisis. Sorry

"The gay intifada". hmm. I guess i missed that talking point memo. Try thinking about what your statements actually mean before making them.

Whether you want to call it a crisis or not, there is a certain portion of the population that feels like it's not getting its fair share. You can pretend that that's meaningless, but then again, "There is no problem." isn't a very compelling argument in light of the fact that there obviously is some sort of problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

filther, we're talking about this because the gay intifada has forced this debate on us. There is no crisis. Sorry

Substitute the word gay for jew and you see how much most of us value a comment like that...

I've said it before, hyperbole helps no one...

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

It's not a problem, filther. Just saying that there is one doesn't make it so. My suggestion would be is to try to persuade the people on the merits of homosexual unions instead of shoveling down the American people throats via the courts and the a mayor of a city known for it's homosexuality.

Heck, y'all wanna make the comparison between the black civil rights movt and the gay "marriage" thingy, but no one want to do the legwork that the blacks did in the 50's and 60's. Make a compelling case and people will listen. Attacking people and claiming that they're intolerant boobs isn't gonna help your cause. And the fact is, that's all we're hearing from the pro homosexual marriage brigade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Substitute the word gay for jew and you see how much most of us value a comment like that...

I've said it before, hyperbole helps no one...

Intresting, considering many of the lefties here have no problem attacking BA Christians. Click the thread about the Christian Right can be dangerous to America, and then we can substitude Jew for Christian and find out how close to Hitler some on the left really are

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Pretending that it isn't a problem doesn't make said problem go away. How exactly isn't this a problem? There aren't marches? There isn't organization? Where have you been? From where i sit i can see plenty of examples of gay rights "legwork". If it weren't for the gay rights legwork that you can't see, we wouldn't be discussing the problem that you pretend doesn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Just so we are clear I was making an anti-semetic reference and NOT a Nazi reference in my post above...

So in your mind, people who struggle for equal rights are BAD. I just want to be clear on this... Most people see gay rights as no different from anything else in the civil rights movement. It is just the latest skirmish in a long history of people stuggling to attain equal rights.

I see the resistance to gay rights coming from the same place that had blacks drinking from seperate water fountains and riding at the back of the bus... You can be equal as long as you don't want to be equal in my back yard...

In the end, these complaints will fade away because bigotry always wilts over time... It wilts because when it really comes down to it we are all just folks... we are the same. And that is true today as will be tomorrow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

The "plight" of homosexual is virtually non existant

I don't really understand how to respond to this statement. But I can safely do so by making anecdotal reference to the following case:

1998, Matthew Shepard was walking down a road when he was kidnapped, beaten, tied to a fencepost, and left to die. Shepard was found and hospitalized in a comatose state and died shortly thereafter.

All because he was gay.

This sort of thing isn't an isolated occurance.

Just because you have blinders on doesn't mean things aren't happening on either side of the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

Yeah, everyone remembers that. The MSM won't allow us to forget.

That's one person. Where is this gay bashing epidemic? How about giving the American people credit for accepting homosexuals as part of our community? Just because people do not want them to redefine marriage, does not make us animals roaming the streets looking to kill homosexuals

Okay........Before this gets any worse....I ask that we stop and take a breath. Think BEFORE your next post. Everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Just so we are clear I was making an anti-semetic reference and NOT a Nazi reference in my post above...

Same thing.

Quote:

So in your mind, people who struggle for equal rights are BAD. I just want to be clear on this... Most people see gay rights as no different from anything else in the civil rights movement. It is just the latest skirmish in a long history of people stuggling to attain equal rights.

No, everyone believes in equal rights. Gays are allowed to marry. The 6% of the pop that they represent is just not permitted to redefine marriage on their terms.

Quote:

I see the resistance to gay rights coming from the same place that had blacks drinking from seperate water fountains and riding at the back of the bus... You can be equal as long as you don't want to be equal in my back yard...

What do I say to this? You're doing what you accuse others of doing: showing intolerance and bigotry. We can disagree without being bigots and liberal weenies

Quote:

In the end, these complaints will fade away because bigotry always wilts over time... It wilts because when it really comes down to it we are all just folks... we are the same. And that is true today as will be tomorrow

Time will tell. This debate is going to be a contentious one. Let's just hope that EVERYONE keeps an open mind to this.

It's particularly chilling to hear the queer movement likened to a terrorist uprising. I see a lot of old canards being played out...all with the potential to be very damaging.

Why are we debating the existance or non existance of a "gay intifada?"

To NCB, why is that an okay comparison to make?

To Filtherton, et al...Why cede the terms of the debate, and even engage such a provocation?

I heard somewhere that new shit has come to light regarding Matthew Shepard, that his death might have more to do with drugs then his being gay. I could be wrong, or I could be right, can't remember the source, would be funny if it turned out to be that Fred Phelps dude (that's that guy right?).

Anybody ever see that episode of Michael Moore's show when he took the sodomy bus to Phelp's church?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

There's a huge difference-the ability to naturally have children.

And what about hetero couples that can't have children? Somehow the definition of marriage covers them.

Are you seriously proposing that having children is part of the criteria of marriage?

Would appreciate clarification, just so I understand.

thx

Mojo_PeiPei- That's what the perps are claiming. But niether their plea baragin, nor evidence at trial supports that claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

To Filtherton, et al...Why cede the terms of the debate, and even engage such a provocation?

I was trying to feed the troll poison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

What do I say to this? You're doing what you accuse others of doing: showing intolerance and bigotry. We can disagree without being bigots and liberal weenies.

Sorry I don't follow you... please explain how I am being intolerant and bigoted... ( I will ignore the "liberal weenie" troll bait for now... but I have a big bag of Fuck you just waiting to be unleashed :icare: )

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Yeah, everyone remembers that. The MSM won't allow us to forget.

That's one person. Where is this gay bashing epidemic?

Billy Jack Gaither, a gay textile worker in Alabama. Murdered for being gay.

Philip Walsted, was bludgeoned to death in a pitch-dark side street off Tucson's Fourth Avenue.

The severed head of Henry Edward Northington, 39, was left on a walkway leading to a popular meeting place for gays.

In 1997, more than 1,000 anti-gay hate crimes were reported to the FBI; 2,930 attacks on lesbians and gay men were documented by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

Attacks Upon Gays and Lesbians: 1999

Documented Incidents: 2,017
Victims: 2,375
Offenders: 3223
Assault Crimes: 705
Robbery/Burglary/Theft: 92
Vandalism: 138
Discrimination: 158
Required Hospital Treatment: 243
Minor Injury: 505
Murders: 29...+12% from 1998

Source:
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/orgs/avproject/1999%20bias%20report%20(final).pdf

This is not an isolated incident. And not just in the USA, in Canada too. But in order for there to be a solution to the problem, people need to realize that there IS a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Heck, y'all wanna make the comparison between the black civil rights movt and the gay "marriage" thingy, but no one want to do the legwork that the blacks did in the 50's and 60's. Make a compelling case and people will listen. Attacking people and claiming that they're intolerant boobs isn't gonna help your cause. And the fact is, that's all we're hearing from the pro homosexual marriage brigade.

NCB, you may want read a bit about The Stonewall Riots before discounting the history and importance of the gay communities to the civil rights movement in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
"Legwork" in both monetary contributions and activism are plenty accounted for.

The "shucks, give 'em a marriage thingy" attitude illustrates exactly the problem you deny exists. You feel entitled to rights and benefits that you would deny another person, simply because you were born straight. Why? Could you really stand in front of my friends who are smart, kind, hard-working, raising two great kids (one who has no health insurance because he has two daddies), have been together for 10 years, and tell them thier family doesn't deserve the respect or level of consideration you deserve? They don't ask for respect from your Priest or your God or even you, but they deserve it from the damn government.

These situations are everywhere - it's not all Village People and drag queens, I promise you. Feel free to hold on to an ideal of marriage that you are defending for Vegas brides and reality shows if you must, but asking your government to treat another US citizen different than they treat you is just indefensible.

i have to say that i find the level of homophobia from conservatives in this thread to be almost dizzyingly offensive. i was sure at various points that it would get shut down.

paul martin's proposal, which opened the thread, is interesting both in itself and as an index of the degree to which the american fundamentalist protestant right has managed to frame the question of whether gay folk should be afforded the (secular, legal) protections of marriage in a manner that is simply the mirror image of the bigotry that you see conservatives individuals here expressing.

sorry ace... but there is no way to draw any meaningful conclusions from those stats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

sorry ace... but there is no way to draw any meaningful conclusions from those stats.

The only conclusion I was aiming at was that it's not an isolated problem.

Hate crime murders happen.

What problem exactly do you have with my statistics? They're the only reliable ones I could find.

and what would the point be of even trying to question the fact that people have been subject to various types of violence on the basis of sexual preference?

i'm sure they're reliable stats in themselves... but there is no context with which to frame the data.

how did they determine that the crimes were anti-gay instead of just crimes that happened to have gay victims?

how many people do they identify as gay/lesbian in the survey? surely that number can't remain constant from year-to-year... has the number of attacks against g/l peoples increased faster than the total number of gay/lesbians?

how do the anti-gay/lesbian violence rates compare against the average american? how do they compare against heterosexual persons of similar socioeconomic background? are the identified gay/lesbian populations subject to lifestyle factors that may be independent of their sexual preferences yet have statistical ties to crime victimization?

those are the type of questions i think need to be addressed before looking at the numbers you presented. it's very hard to look at those bare statistics in your post and conclude that there is an epidemic without more information. my apologies if those are discussed in the link you provided in your post... i'm on a very slow connection and am reluctant to try to d/l a pdf document.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

Police and gay rights organizations (HRC, Stonewall, etc...) track hate crimes against gays the same as race, religious, gender hate crimes. The attackers shout homophobic slurs and target gatherings specific to gays to single out victims. These additional circumstances must be proven in court because they carry additional charges and penalties.

Unfortunately, many times the hate crime specific data gets tossed out due to a plea bargain or insufficient evidence (the victim was alone and so no other witnesses could verify the "suck on this, faggot" taunts while he was being kicked in the face), so if anything the numbers only reflect some fraction of actual occurences.

Sadly, the anti-gay policies pursued by our government only help to justify the ideas among these idiots that they are justified in there hate and terrorizing of gays.

I can't remember the name of the philosopher or the thought experiment, but it goes like this:

You have no idea who you are. You could be of any race, religion, social standing, talent group, or sexual orientation. You are in charge of doling out rights and liberties to certain groups of people. After you choose the placement of rights and liberties, you will be thrown into the system and you could land anywhere. For instance, you could be a white heterosexual Christian upperclass male, or you could be a black queer lowerclass female Jew.

Based upon this, would it not make sense to give equal rights to everyone? If you just so happened to turn out gay (lets accept that gayness is something that exists and happens to people whether they want it or not, just for the sake of the thought experiment!) would you not want to be able to have equal rights as everyone else? Would you not want to get married?

===

Don't let the tyrrany of the majority rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

That's an amazing experiment, and so true. I continually want to hit people that live in the bible belt upside the head with the very book the excersize belief in.

As for a personal stance, either gay marriage should be perfectly allowed, or marriage should me nothing more than a function of the church, with no legal component whatsoever. Reduce everything to common-law marriage and allow those that truly believe in the sanctity of marriage to undertake it at their own leisure.

But since the latter of those options will never happen, we have to hold out for the former. Even if it takes far, far longer than it should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

NCB, since I authored the thread that I think that you are bashing here (and slurring me -"leftie"- ), I take exception to you doing this, here, rather than discussing your objections and offering your point of view there, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83400">Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.?</a>
instead of here...................

Considering that my thread made enough of an impression on you for you to
make the slurs and the claims about it's content, and I presume,,,,,about me,
it is curious that the following was all you posted on that thread. There were
many well researched and well referenced posts on that thread, 166 posts
in total.

Bashing that thread and it's author and supporters here, instead of making a
coherent and persuasive argument on the thread itself, leads me to suspect that your remarks come from neither your heart, nor your gut.

It is much easier to respect and understand a passionate objection made in
a "face to face" confrontation than in a tactical, backdoor post to another thread...............

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Exactly what rights have you personally lost since 9/11?
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1676995&postcount=117">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1676995&postcount=117</a>

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

irateplatypus, why don't you address your own questions, search out answers yourself, and decide if there is an epidemic or manipulated statistics. You seem much more concerned about being lured into a false sense of empathy for people who only want to receive the same respect and the same legal rights in the area of marriage, that you already enjoy. Why not err on the side of empathy for people who you must, at one time or another in your life,
have observed being harrassed or embarassed because of their sexual orientation. Unless you've lived in a bubble, I know that you've seen that happen, we all have.

Just so you all know, this thread has come very close to being closed several times already, and is very close to that point again. This is the first time I've read it; I've read it all the way through, and people have brought it back from the point of needing to be closed several times.

If the thread is closed, people will be recieving warnings, and depending on the severity of offenses, they may recieve temporary bannings to give them time to cool off. This is the only advance notice that you're going to get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

We're doing our best to keep it civil.

It is a two way street with everyone else though.

Host, I didn't realize that calling someone a "lefty" was bashing or considered a slur. If that's the case, would being labeled a member of the religious right be considered a slur or bashing as well, or is the street one way in nature?

I'm confident that other than Host, I have not bashed or slurred anyone on this board. If there's one thing I've been to everyone and their views, it's respectful. So Host, please do not mistake disagreement for mean spiritedness.

Now, back on topic.

I thought about this the other day, but what exactly is the magical about the number "2"? Why have the homosexual marriage proponents settled on only two consenting adults should "marry"? Is that not intolerant towards the beliefs of Mormons and Muslims? Why should we limit the debate on redefining marriage to what the homosexual lobby wants?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I thought about this the other day, but what exactly is the magical about the number "2"? Why have the homosexual marriage proponents settled on only two consenting adults should "marry"? Is that not intolerant towards the beliefs of Mormons and Muslims? Why should we limit the debate on redefining marriage to what the homosexual lobby wants?

Why shouldn't we?

If you are insinuating that altering marriage to include same-sex couples but not polygamy or polygany is arbitrary, then I would ask why limiting it to opposite-sex couples is not arbitrary?

The fact is that the argument over whether marriage should be between more than two people is a different debate entirely. Comparing the alteration of marriage to include same-sex couples with any old alteration of marriage you can come up with is not an effective or logical argument against gay marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Now, back on topic.

I thought about this the other day, but what exactly is the magical about the number "2"? Why have the homosexual marriage proponents settled on only two consenting adults should "marry"? Is that not intolerant towards the beliefs of Mormons and Muslims? Why should we limit the debate on redefining marriage to what the homosexual lobby wants?

Seperate issue and a red herring.

Polyamourous relationships will be examined when there is the same sort of ground swell of support for them that there is for same sex marriages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Seperate issue and a red herring.

Polyamourous relationships will be examined when there is the same sort of ground swell of support for them that there is for same sex marriages.

Like when polygamy is LEGAL

Last time I checked, being Gay wasn't illegal anymore... So revision of laws surrounding it need to be considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Seperate issue and a red herring.

Polyamourous relationships will be examined when there is the same sort of ground swell of support for them that there is for same sex marriages.

What is this ground swell of support you're talking about? Are you talking about Canada or the US?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

What is this ground swell of support you're talking about? Are you talking about Canada or the US?

Since this is a thread about Paul Martin and Canada's attempt to change the definition of marriage... I think the answer is fairly obvious :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

What is this ground swell of support you're talking about? Are you talking about Canada or the US?

I was refering to Canada but there is strong support for this in the increasingly puritanical US as well.

Ultimatley, what this comes down to in Canada is that is an issue that falls under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

By the way NCB: If you don't like same sex marriage... don't marry someone of the same sex... :p

Sorta related. It's not worthy of it's own thread, but it's worth the read. Funny shit!

Interview With A Preacher Who
Thinks Superman Is A Homosexual

According to a Topeka, Kansas preacher, that is precisely what he is suggesting and wants to ban everything from Superman comic books to re-runs of that old B&W television series. I did not believe it until I contacted this nutcase myself. The preacher's name is Clay. Here is the beginning part of my conversation
with him:

Lewis: Hello, my name is Lewis from Bizarre News. I'm following up on a tip I received from a reader about your story. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?

Clay: It's not about the homosexual Superman thing again, is it?

Lewis: Well, yes. I would have called sooner but I was in Salt Lake City at the Olympics.

Clay: Okay, but I have given about 25 interviews over the last three weeks and I never heard of Bizarre News.

Lewis: We're small, but up and coming. What in the world made you think that Superman was gay? He started out as a cartoon!

Clay: What kind of MAN runs around in tights or leotards? I tell you there is a homosexual conspiracy trying to turn all of our young boys into homosexuals. It started with these cartoons or comic books and you see it openly on television.

Lewis: You mean that this is like the Communist Conspiracy of the Cold War?

Clay: Hell yes--but its worse. The President is all worried about this Al Qaida thing when he should be worrying that Hollywood and all of the creative community is trying to turn our boys into queers.

Lewis: Isn't that kind of harsh? Using the word "queer"
is derogatory.

Clay: Look, I am trying to save our youth and you speak to me about politically correct speech? It is not just Superman... look at Batman. What adult male has a teenage boy as his side kick? There is a pervasive problem going on and we better do something about it quickly, or this abomination will take over our country even more than it has.

NCB, that above conversation really reminds me of Michael Chabon's great book, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. In it, the two title characters are called before the House Un-American Activities committee (I think) and are forced to answer questions about why their comic book characters all have male sidekicks, wear tights, things like that. Crazy stuff.

Also - a California court invalidated that state's ban on same-sex marriage today.

Which, by the way - awesome. Just awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

:lol:

I gotta check that out!!!

Quote:

Also - a California court invalidated that state's ban on same-sex marriage today.

Which, by the way - awesome. Just awesome.

Not awesome. Once again, the judicial system oversteps it's bounds. It shouldn't matter what side of the issue your on or what side of the politcal spectrum you reside, when judges, most of them unelected and unaccountable, begin rewriting or making up law, that's not a good thing. If the people of CA want to redefine marriage, then they should do it via the legislature and the court of public opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Other than a displeasure at the result (or at least the simple parroting of someone else who has displeasure at the result), I'm not clear where that concept comes from.

Judges constantly adjust or redefine laws. The people's majority might want something to be a law, but if that something is in opposition to the Constitution, the people's majority can't have it. What you are suggesting is mob rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Other than a displeasure at the result (or at least the simple parroting of someone else who has displeasure at the result), I'm not clear where that concept comes from.

Attacking someone for an argument you cannot defend is not an argument.

Quote:

Judges constantly adjust or redefine laws. The people's majority might want something to be a law, but if that something is in opposition to the Constitution, the people's majority can't have it. What you are suggesting is mob rule.

Just because they do, doesn't give them the constitutional power to do so. Having 1,3, or 5 judges deciding what should be and what should not be law is not a good thing for a democracy. Communism, yes, but not a democracy.

Yeah, I gotta agree with Manx. The judiciary should not be a more or less vestigial organ of the government, existing only to settle disputes with generally predictable outcomes. The judiciary should be a full third of the government, striking down legislation that violates the Constitution (or a state constutution, or whatever) and playing an active role in the governmental process. I'm way way way way more scared of tyranny of the majority than when the Courts actually do their job.

By the way, and I'm just asking, what was your opinion of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore? The way they actively interfered with the state government's right to judiciate itself? After all, elections are state business, and the Bush v. Gore court was very activist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Yeah, I gotta agree with Manx. The judiciary should not be a more or less vestigial organ of the government, existing only to settle disputes with generally predictable outcomes. The judiciary should be a full third of the government, striking down legislation that violates the Constitution (or a state constutution, or whatever) and playing an active role in the governmental process. I'm way way way way more scared of tyranny of the majority than when the Courts actually do their job.[/quotes]

1. Sure, they're one third of the govt, but they also have no accountability.
2. The Legisaltive branch is the only body that can make law, not the judcial. And frankly, that's what they're doing

By the way, and I'm just asking, what was your opinion of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore? The way they actively interfered with the state government's right to judiciate itself? After all, elections are state business, and the Bush v. Gore court was very activist.

The USSC made the correct decision. If you look at what the FLA courts were doing, they were rewriting election law on the spot. That's not their job. The US SC came in and said that the FLA courts went beyond their duty. What do you think of it? Do you think they should have been rewriting the election law during the middle of an election count?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Attacking someone for an argument you cannot defend is not an argument.

What are you talking about?

Quote:

Just because they do, doesn't give them the constitutional power to do so.

Just because they are preventing unconstitutional laws from taking effect doesn't give them the constitutional power to do so? I don't know what that means. Every decision a judge makes is based to some degree on the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

What are you talking about?
Just because they are preventing unconstitutional laws from taking effect doesn't give them the constitutional power to do so? I don't know what that means. Every decision a judge makes is based to some degree on the Constitution.

Where in the constittuion does it indicate that homosexuals have the right to marry?

Where in the Constitution does it indicate that only hetersexuals can marry? It's a question of discrimination. Discrimination is unconstitutional.

But now I understand. You are simply expressing your displeasure at the ruling by claiming the judge did something he shouldn't have. You interpret the Constitution differently than the judge and therefore you disagree with the judge. That doesn't mean the judge has "overstepped his bounds" - it just means you disagree with the outcome.

Which is what I suspected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Where in the constittuion does it indicate that homosexuals have the right to marry?

Funny, I just read The Constitution and can't find a mention of hetrosexual marriage either. Or marriage at all.
So are you going to argue that Hetro-sexual marriage is somehow implied in that document?

I wouldn't recomend that argument, as it also entails implying that hetrosexual marriage is by some means more favored and deserves special status.

That document does not address mariage, and stating that it is implied by any of the founding documents of the country is bupkiss. Implied isn't on the page, it wasn't written.
The guiding principals we have are what was written down for us by the founding fathers. Not one ever deemed it important enough to write down, otherwise they would have bothered.

We don't know how they would have felt on the issue, so don't bother trying to claim you have any clue what they would have thought or felt.
All we know is the issue was never mentioned, so the issue is now our responsability to address.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Where in the constittuion does it indicate that homosexuals have the right to marry?

NCB, we're better than that. You know and I know and everyone knows that this is a silly statement with no meaning. Where does it say in the Constitution that abortion is legal? Where does it say that schools must desegregate? And yet, somehow, miraculously, the Supreme Court managed to rule on those issues.

It does say in the Constitution that the courts have the rights to decide whether legislation or government rules are constitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Silly argument. I can counter with where does it say in the Const. that you cannot do 90MPH in a 55MPH zone, but that would be equally as silly.

So to answer my own question, the homosexual lobby makes it's argument that it's found under the EPC. However, their argument falls short because homosexuals are not prevented from marrying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Silly argument. I can counter with where does it say in the Const. that you cannot do 90MPH in a 55MPH zone, but that would be equally as silly.

Are you joking? It's a silly argument when I use the exact same argument you started with?

C'mon!

Quote:

So to answer my own question, the homosexual lobby makes it's argument that it's found under the EPC. However, their argument falls short because homosexuals are not prevented from marrying.

Nonsense. They are prevented from marrying. Are heterosexuals prevented from marrying the person they want? No. But homosexuals are.

But this is beside my point. I have no interest in debating gay marriage with you. You stated the judge overstepped his bounds, and I pointed out the fallacy of that argument. That's all the interested me here.

NCB, homosexuals ARE prevented from marrying. That is the whole point of what the California court overruled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

NCB, homosexuals ARE prevented from marrying. That is the whole point of what the California court overruled.

No they're not. They're prevented from redefining the institution of marriage to suit their wants. They can marry anytime they want, hence, they are not discriminated against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

No they're not. They're prevented from redefining the institution of marriage to suit their wants. They can marry anytime they want, hence, they are not discriminated against.

Who defines marriage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

No they're not. They're prevented from redefining the institution of marriage to suit their wants. They can marry anytime they want, hence, they are not discriminated against.

So your saying that "civil union" is marriage, right?
Well then you should be in complete support of removing the marriage laws from the law books of the states and replacing said laws with the laws for civil unions as they are currently worded.
After all, if it is the same thing, then there isn't a difference anyway. Why bother with the word Marriage for hetro or homo if civil union is the same. Unless of course their's a difference between the two you'd like to comment on...

And I'm glad to see we all agree that your mentioning of the Constitution was utterly deviod of any meaning or argument. In that case, you wouldn't mind going back and editing it out.

Black people wanted to redefine the institution of public schooling. They could have gone to school anytime they wanted, hence, they were not discriminated against.

Black people wanted to sit at the front of the bus. They could have sat at the back of the bus, hence, they were not discriminated against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

So your saying that "civil union" is marriage, right.

No. Try again

Quote:

Who defines marriage?

Our society has defined marriage for centuries based on traditional Western values.

If the people here who are for homosexual marriage, then logically they should be for polygamy and incestual marriage as well, so long as it's between consenting adults. However, most of y'all are not. So my question is, why is the magic number set on two people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

No. Try again

Our society has defined marriage for centuries based on traditional Western values.

Please point out the states that allow Gay marriage. Fully and legaly, with no caveat that is not found in a mirrored right to hetro-sexual marriage.

Additionally, Western values also included the handing out of small pox blankets to native peoples and that women where not citizens. Thankfully, western values are fluid and change with society. We are in the middle of a change. That change could go either way, but regardless, none of us can claim that we can define western values in such a way that we could reach consensus. If you so choose to use that phrase, it is hereby relegated to mean only your personal opinion of what western values are, much as any statement I make regarding Western values is only my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

Please point out the states that allow Gay marriage. Fully and legaly, with no caveat that is not found in a mirrored right to hetro-sexual marriage.

Additionally, Western values also included the handing out of small pox blankets to native peoples and that women where not citizens. Thankfully, western values are fluid and change with society. We are in the middle of a change. That change could go either way, but regardless, none of us can claim that we can define western values in such a way that we could reach consensus. If you so choose to use that phrase, it is hereby relegated to mean only your personal opinion of what western values are, much as any statement I make regarding Western values is only my opinion.

If you're referring to same sex "marriage", there are no states that allow such a thing (though I think VT has this thingy called civil unions). However, any homosexual can get married at anytime. No one is denying them that right

Our society has defined marriage for centuries based on same-race "Western values".

If the people here are against homosexual marriage, then logically they should be against interracial marriage as well. However, most of y'all are not (I assume). So my question is, why is discrimination only acceptable against gays and not races?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

That's great rhetoric for the 1960's Manx, but it's not relevant today. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Marriage is between a man and a woman, any race. My point remains. Any homosexual man can marry a woman and any homosexual woman can marry a man. No one is stopping them. Heck, I know it's silly but a straight man can't marry another man either.