I meant that the negatives have been discussed on this forum in various threads quite a bit. You said you could lay out the positives, and demonstrate that they outweigh the possible negatives. Could you please list those positives? I'm not trying to challenge you, just asking.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, sure. We deny rights or discriminate legitimately against several groups, like criminals. But in all those cases you cite, I'm sure we'll agree the state has a legitmate reason to deny rights.

However, when discrimination becomes arbitrary, functionally unrelated to a legitimate organizational need, it is wrong and unconstitutional. This type of discrimination is harmful to our society, as again I'm sure we'll both agree that discrimination against blacks was wrong and society benefitted by ending institutional racism.

The crux of the argument, then, is whether the state has a legitimate reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. We all have our opinions here and I don't see a need to go into it again right now.

I realize that you're responding to DragAttack, but I just want to make this one point and I think (lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) the law backs me up: The burden is not on the gay community to convince anyone how their marriages will help society. If the state wants to deny them that right, the burden is on the state to show that that discrimination has a compelling purpose and is not arbitrary or invidious.

---

_______________________________________________

I just want to make this one point and I think (lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) the law backs me up: <> If the state wants to deny them that right, the burden is on the state to show that that discrimination has a compelling purpose and is not arbitrary or invidious.

I'm not a lawyer, but: I think you're right that if the state wants to deny someone a particular right, the burden is on the state to show that discrimination has a compelling purpose. True, but irrelevent. Legally speaking, the fact is that gays aren't denied the right to marry right now. The question isn't who has the right to marry, it's what that right means. (You can bitch and moan about how ridiculous it is to say that gays already have the right to marry, since they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but the legal fact is they do have that right, they can choose to exercise it or not, and many have married.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, the basic problem with your argument is that a large part of America doesn't believe that witholding these rights from gays is, in fact, harmful to society. Although we agree that the state has legitimate reason to deny rights to certain groups, we obviously don't agree with regard to this particular group. My feeling is that gays deserve certain rights in relation to their ability to establish lasting legally recognized unions. However, I think there are certain rights or privileges associated with heterosexual marriage that should not extend to those unions. Therefore I am in favor of civil unions, because that term can be defined to extend the specific privileges that i believe should apply, without giving those unions every right of a "marriage" simply by default.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Therefore I am in favor of civil unions, because that term can be defined to extend the specific privileges that i believe should apply, without giving those unions every right of a "marriage" simply by default.

what privilages would traditional marriage have that legal unions would not? [bonafide question]. I ask because I have a very poor understanding of tax-law, dependents, and all that jazz. [I'm married to an accountant. I haven't balanced a checkbook or filled out a tax form in 8 years.]

I personally don't see the difference between marriage and a "legal union" (outside of official label)

-----------------------------

Would non-religous people then be encouraged to get a legal union, rather than a marriage that commonly includes vows to God or another diety-type?

-----------------------------

Could civil unions then be awarded to a man and multiple partners (or any other combination)?

I ask because I don't see how it couldn't? I also don't see where limitations would cease with dealing with human citizens.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

"what privilages would traditional marriage have that legal unions would not?"

The example I usually use is this. If an adoption agency wqs faced with two equally qualified couples seeking to adopt a baby, and one couple was a gay couple, I think the agency should be allowed to give preference to the straight couple, in order to place the child in a household with both a mother and a father. This is something that could be spelled out if their was a difference between civil union and marriage, but not if both things were the same.

"Could civil unions then be awarded to a man and multiple partners (or any other combination)?
I ask because I don't see how it couldn't? I also don't see where limitations would cease with dealing with human citizens."

Well I suppose the argument would definitely come up. People will always try to say "Well they're allowed to do it, why can't I?", but the law is always a matter of degree. If you kill someone with intent, you can get a certain sentence, but if you kill them accidentally, you can get less punishment. Same result, but defined differently under the law. It's a matter of drawing the line where society feels it needs to be drawn. It wouldn't be difficult to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and to define civil union as a union between two people of the same sex.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The question is, how do you what the gay/lesbians to be. Do you want them to live a normal life inside society or do you want them to hide away - either if they are lucky (and live in a larger city) inside their own community or inside the closet until theyre desperate enough to lead their sexlife in parks and fuck behind the bushes? I think its a win-win situation. Not only the gay/lesbians would gain, but society itself gains if we manage to integrate as large a proportion of its population as possible to live peaceful inside society.

Do you have children? If you have one, there is a chance of 5-10%, that designing a society were homosexuels can live a respected life without need to hide, will enable him/her to live a life that suites his/her natur. If you have more than one, this chance rises equivalent. I consider this safty as benefit for every father and mother.

BTW I dont care whether the result in the end is called marriage, civil union or whatever as far as the content fits. In Germany its called registered partnership.

Cheers Torsten

I'm not convinced this is a good example. The question in this example is whether adoption agencies can give preference to a straight couple over a gay couple. If they can, it really wouldn't matter if the gay couple were married or in a civil union - it would be a moot point. If they can't, they wouldn't have any legal grounds to systematically deny equally qualified gay couples whether they were married or in a civil union.

Are there other privileges of marriage you think wouldn't be included in a civil union, the way you envision it?

My take is that many people don't have a problem with gay couples having some sort of official union but don't want to call it marriage for the sake of tradition. Others see no difference between gay civil unions and gay marriage and are either for or against both.

---

_______________________________________________

"I'm not convinced this is a good example. The question in this example is whether adoption agencies can give preference to a straight couple over a gay couple. If they can, it really wouldn't matter if the gay couple were married or in a civil union - it would be a moot point. If they can't, they wouldn't have any legal grounds to systematically deny equally qualified gay couples whether they were married or in a civil union. "

Well, if a gay couple was defined to be just a married as a straight couple, from where would the adoption agency derive it's ability to choose one over the other?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I'm not sure they legally could, but one argument would be that it's better to have a mother and a father rather than 2 mothers for example.

(I've tried to present an argument that studies show that gay parents are just as good as straight ones, but I admit I'll never convince everyone of that.)

My point is that gay vs. straight is a much stonger distinction than civil union vs. marriage, and the former distinction would be the one that mattered.

---

_______________________________________________

I think you legislate the gay vs. straight argument by defining civil union differently than marriage. that way, adoption agencies are on firm legal grounds to make the distinction. I don't know if this would even ever come up, it was just a possible example.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Maybe, but if the law said you couldn't give straights perferential treatment over gays, your law giving marriage preference over civil unions would be struck down, as it's basically the same thing.

Maybe the real question I have is: why would you find it neccessary to give gay civil unions fewer privileges than marriages?

---

_______________________________________________

"Maybe the real question I have is: why would you find it neccessary to give gay civil unions fewer privileges than marriages? "

It's not so much an issue of giving them less rights. I don't have a list of every right or privilege you get for being married, so it's hard to say. But defining civil unions as a separate thing from marriage would allow govt to decide which rights or privileges they do get, rather than being obligated to give them all of what marriage gets.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What would be the advantage to that? I don't have a full list either, but I don't see why there would be any purpose to limiting the privleges in the first place.

---

_______________________________________________

>"Also, in fact, OK teaches "creation science". In OK the law reads:
"When adopting science textbooks, the Committee shall ensure that the textbooks include acknowledgment that human life was created by one God of the Universe"

This is shocking to me. Isn't that a clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment? Public schools cannot teach anything about God.

I heard a professor on NPR the other day say that, judging by election results around the country, including ballot initiatives, it is pretty clear that if the 1st Amendment had been on the ballot, it would not have passed. After all, when you think about it, it is the ultimate "liberal" statute. I have no doubt that he is right. I can just hear people campaigning against it now: "What! You'd be allowed to burn the flag if this passed? NO way." or "What! They won't be allowed to teach the 10 commandments or creationism in school anymore? This is the work of Satan." And so forth.

I will now slowly step off the soap box.

' wolf

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones