Comments on: It’s not a compromise if one side gets nothing

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:53:25 +0000

Israel has a policy that marriages are not properly protected if one of the couple is Palestinian. This may not be technically religiously unfair, but it is likely to have far more impact on Israeli Muslims than on Israeli Jews, don’t you think?

Yes, gay people may marry an opposite-sex partner, just like everyone else. This does not grant gay people equality: not in the real sense of the term.

In Iran, everyone is equally free to worship Allah.

***

To get back to the original post: There are plenty of people (including my own mother) who think that same-sex and opposite-sex unions should be fully equally protected. But, for some reason, they object to applying the word “marriage” to same-sex unions, preferring instead a complete rewrite of the law books.

This proposal would either placate such people, or reveal to them the absurdity of their position. (And my mother’s a very intelligent woman.)

TRiG.

By: Chairm

Chairm — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:27:43 +0000

Gay or not, you can find no gay criterion in the law — not in marriage and not even in gay union.

But maybe you can try to cite such a criterion and maybe you can explain precisely how the law distinguishes “gay” from non-gay.

By: Mark Barton

Mark Barton — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:01:34 +0000

CO: “In this case, the facially neutral laws are neutral in effect and in substance.”

Not if you’re gay they’re not.

By: GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE » Religious Freedom and “Government out of Marriage”

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:44:10 +0000

[...] the government out of marriage” so-called compromise to the SSM controversy. I have said that it’s not a compromise because one side gets nothing. But I’m starting to rethink [...]

By: Chairm

Chairm — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:02:51 +0000

In this case, the facially neutral laws are neutral in effect and in substance.

By: Mark Barton

Mark Barton — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:53:53 +0000

BD: “Because being gay is exactly like being homeless and poor.”

For the purposes yes. In case you missed it, the analogy is about people callously playing dumb about the differential effect of facially neutral laws.

By: Belloc's Daughter

Belloc's Daughter — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:57:42 +0000

Because being gay is exactly like being homeless and poor.

By: Mark Barton

Mark Barton — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:02:24 +0000

Marty: “No not really. Marriage IS equally available to all — all who meet the 4 basic requirements I described.”

Anatole France had the last word on this sort of thinking: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:40:28 +0000

that’s why you can’t have “marriage” in a legal doctrine that is supposed to provide equality for all. Does that make sense?

No not really. Marriage IS equally available to all — all who meet the 4 basic requirements I described.

What you are proposing is changing the name of the legal institution, and removing one of the 4 requirements. Still equally available to all — just with a lowered standard, and arguably lowered prestige.

As for Prop 8, the People of California are as free to repeal constitutional amendments as they are to enact them.

By: George Jackson

George Jackson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:36:18 +0000

The Question is this….

Would you rather have “domestic partnership” as the term used in legal doctrine (you can call it whatever you please at home or even have a marriage ceremony at church). Or would you want to keep “marriage” in the state constitution, thereby allowing for the possibility that prop 8 will be over turned (thus allowing “same sex marriage” which completely contradicts the “historical requirement” of “marriage”). And regardless of whether or not this initiative succeeds, prop 8 is going to get turned over sooner or later.