Section 29 ruled unconstitutional
Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss
-
- City Council
- Posts: 105456
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
- Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
- Contact:
-
- Human Relations
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:44 pm
- Location: Millard/Sarpy County
Mostly an ignorant population base that is afraid they'll go to heck if they give gays rights like everyone else. It's ok to discriminate if the group is not white, republican and conservative. (and straight)
Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live in such a closed minded "red state."
Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live in such a closed minded "red state."
Last edited by projectman on Thu May 12, 2005 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was flippin thru the channels and Trav was on with the people calls about this. It was hilarious. One guy was yelling in the phone, "I don't think gay people should have ANY rights!!" I might get |expletive| for this (but hey when don't I) but I don't think gays should get the benefits of marriage. BUT I think they should get to be able to let their partner get benefits and be able to make decisions on their behalf.
DTO
What exactly are the benefits of marriage DTO ... if NOT getting your partners benefits, being able to make legal decisions on a partners behalf, etc?
I personally think government should replace all references to 'marriage' with 'civil union'. Then let the churches protect 'marriage'... the religious consecration of the civil union in any way they want.
I personally think government should replace all references to 'marriage' with 'civil union'. Then let the churches protect 'marriage'... the religious consecration of the civil union in any way they want.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 105456
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
- Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
- Contact:
Why does our money have "in God we trust" on it. The separation of church adn state seems difficult when the US was founded by people seeking religious freedom in the first place. Its always been a double standard and will continue to be. Doesn't make it right, but...DTO Luv wrote:Well if the whole thing about marriage is it's religious than why is the state (Federal too) trying to interfere with a religious practice? Wouldn't that go against church and state too?
-
- City Council
- Posts: 105456
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
- Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
- Contact:
- Coyote
- City Council
- Posts: 33216
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
- Location: Aksarben Village
- Contact:
I think we are moving in this direction and eventually there will eventually be a distinction in the United States between the legal system and religious practice of a civil union/divorce proceedings (taxes, next of kin issues, property ownership) and marriage/annulments. Under the present system the minister is acting as an agent of the state when he or she signs the marriage certificate that recognizes the union. But I wonder who or what issue will be the catalyst for this change.jhuston wrote:I personally think government should replace all references to 'marriage' with 'civil union'. Then let the churches protect 'marriage'... the religious consecration of the civil union in any way they want.
<<<<
But I wonder who or what issue will be the catalyst for this change.
>>>>
Take into consideration the legal battle over "under God" in the public school in California. The District Court (9th, I think?) ruled that the line was, in their opinion, unconstitutional. The order was eventually overturned by a higher court.
HOWEVER - and this is so unimaginably important - it was overturned NOT because it was considered an improper ruling, but because the father did not have full custody of the daughter and therefore should not have been allowed to make the claim on her behalf. In my opinion (and I'm not a lawyer), it is the legal equivalent of a a murderer getting away for not being read Miranda.
Most unjust or illegal laws simply need the proper case to made against them before they are struck down. The problem is, too often, that the majority doesn't see them as unjust.
-Big E
But I wonder who or what issue will be the catalyst for this change.
>>>>
Take into consideration the legal battle over "under God" in the public school in California. The District Court (9th, I think?) ruled that the line was, in their opinion, unconstitutional. The order was eventually overturned by a higher court.
HOWEVER - and this is so unimaginably important - it was overturned NOT because it was considered an improper ruling, but because the father did not have full custody of the daughter and therefore should not have been allowed to make the claim on her behalf. In my opinion (and I'm not a lawyer), it is the legal equivalent of a a murderer getting away for not being read Miranda.
Most unjust or illegal laws simply need the proper case to made against them before they are struck down. The problem is, too often, that the majority doesn't see them as unjust.
-Big E
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/15/gay.co ... index.html
I think it will take something similar to this type of incident (although I'm not sure this one is egregious enough) for there to be a wholesale shift away our current co-habitation of church and state.
If someone can make a reasonable discrimination claim against a church, the church is in very serious jeopardy of losing its tax exempt status. When that happens, the church will need to make a very serious decision on whether or not it wants to (gasp!) let the queers in, or (GASP! GASP! GASP!) start paying taxes.
As it stands, tax exemptions are essentially government subsidies, and no entity receiving government funds can discriminate. If the churches were officially commercial institutions, they would have a lot more leverage when it comes to their BS social stances. They would actually be able to hang a "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone" sign on their front door.
-Big E
I think it will take something similar to this type of incident (although I'm not sure this one is egregious enough) for there to be a wholesale shift away our current co-habitation of church and state.
If someone can make a reasonable discrimination claim against a church, the church is in very serious jeopardy of losing its tax exempt status. When that happens, the church will need to make a very serious decision on whether or not it wants to (gasp!) let the queers in, or (GASP! GASP! GASP!) start paying taxes.
As it stands, tax exemptions are essentially government subsidies, and no entity receiving government funds can discriminate. If the churches were officially commercial institutions, they would have a lot more leverage when it comes to their BS social stances. They would actually be able to hang a "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone" sign on their front door.
-Big E