Well It's Democracy

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@8 August 2004 - 11:28

you stated earlier that you made no opinion so to clear it up for us lets see where you do stand on the issue. yes or no answers please.

1. Do you think that equality is a right in the USA?

2. Homosexuals should have the right to a "union" that grants them the same rights as hetrosexual marriages ?

3.  should a specific amendment to the constitution be put in place to ban gay "unions".

Edit: here are my answers.

1. yes

2. yes

3. no

I'll do this backwards.

3) No. It isn't necessary.

2) Yes. I see no harm.

1) Herein lies the bugaboo.

In the abstract, who could say no?

The fact is that equality cannot be legislated; equality can only exist as an aim, or a provision of opportunity.

An imperfect example would be access for the handicapped; we build wheelchair ramps so certain people can access certain buildings or facilities.

Does this make them "equal" to "fully-abled" persons?

Certainly not in any fuller sense of the word.

I am struck also by the notion that access the the term "marriage" seems to signify the key to turning that particular trick, when [I]everything else is being offered, and on a silver platter to boot.

To posit that the deal is untenable absent the term is preposterous.

[J'Pol]

It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@8 August 2004 - 11:05
Jeez j2, you make Bush out to be a scholar or sumpin.
You are aware that prior to becoming President, Bush was foursquare AGAINST a Constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.
Hopping on the bandwagon now seems to me to be little more than a political move pandering to the religious right wing constituancy he so desperately needs to claim another term.
Even if such an amendment were to clear the Congress ( and, embarrassingly enough for the Republicans, it didn't even come close) it would take YEARS for the required 36 states to ratify it.
That would be years during which another minority would be deprived of benefits and legal standing.
At the end of this interminable process I think the Amendment would fail anyway.
Times are 'achangin and this diversionary tactic can't stop them.

As I have said many times, in many places:

Bush is executing a tactical maneuver; the amendment will never come to pass, and he and everyone else (including me, but excluding you, apparently) knows it.

It's an election year, for crissakes-this isn't your first one!

[vidcc]

Jpol has hit on the point very well and i applaud the post...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J'Pol@8 August 2004 - 15:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

This post is as intellectually pleasing to the mind as a damn fine hat is to the head.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J'Pol@8 August 2004 - 12:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

Bush isn't creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now!

I'm sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@8 August 2004 - 16:30
Bush isn't creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now!

I'm sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this?

How is recognising basic human rights to be compared with "indulgance".

Gays should never have been barred from a legally recognized union and, in fact, there is nothing in the constituition that makes it illegal in the first place.

It is the "indulgance" of the church by our government that strikes me.

It is like stating that freeing the slaves was a political indulgance. It was a situation that should NEVER have occurred in the first place.



edit- fixed a bizarre typo

[MicroScreen2]

if they get the same tax breaks and so on, will divorce be as diffficult and looked upon the same as it is for straight couples. so it isn't exploited to give gay couples a tax break for the sake of a tax break?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+8 August 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 8 August 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 12:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? [/b][/quote]
I take this from the post which opened this thread

Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

Now you may say that amending constitutions, state or federal is not creating legislation. Other than that patently specious argument, I really don&#39;t understand where you are coming from.

Positive action is being taken to discriminate against a group of people. I can&#39;t really make it any clearer than that. Or am I missing something.

[vidcc]

Hobbes was quicker than i in the post.

MicroScreen2
same rights, same playing field, so same rules with divorce.
We are not arguing for anything different for anyone and we are not approving of a lifestyle, we are arguing for equality.