Marriage by Any Other Name

[torasama.livejournal.com]

While a rose may be a rose by any other name, the same does not hold true of marriage. Marriage is marriage. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, both in society's eyes and the law's - couples joined under a civil union do not have the same rights as a married couple. Denoting long-term, committed same-sex relations as 'lesser' opens a legal Pandora's box and provides a venue for continued discrimination, by applying a different set of rights to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

To deny a civil marriage to a same-sex couple is blatant discrimination per the 14th Amendment. Just as the anti-interracial marriage arguement that all races had the "same right" to marry others of their own race didn't work in Loving vs. Virginia, the arguement that homosexuals have the "same right" to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't work, either.

Comments

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

"Marriage was a civil accord long before it was a "religious institution."


Utter nonsense.

Up until about 200 or less years ago religion and state often shared powered. So to say that governments back then recognized marriage for secular reasons is to ignorant of history or to be a out right liar. It would be impossible to tell why governments of the ancient world got involved in marriage.

The trouble is you want government to recognize homosexual marriage so you can use the government to force acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. It is a power trip and a goal of "changing society" that you want and not rights at all.

If by privatizing marriage and making government only involved in the civil property sharing thing you would get equal rights to any other union as they would all be based on property and not sexual relationships. BUT as I said rights isn't your real goal, normalization of the homosexual lifestyle is your goal.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

"Wrong. Marriage didn't become religious until after the Council of Trent in the West and in most cultures is still considered a financial transaction between two families solidified by payment of bridewealth.

The "religious nature" of marriage is puerile bullshit and has little to no relevance to the historical record." -underlankers

The trouble is you want government to recognize homosexual marriage so you can use the government to force acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. It is a power trip and a goal of "changing society" that you want and not rights at all.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The LBGT community wants to be able to do the things that any other person can, which does include property rights, but also on a much larger scale, all the social aspects of marriage, child rearing, child custody, adopting, hospital visitation rights, honors given to a surviving spouse when someone dies in the battlefield, the ability to be able to say you have a spouse in the military, the ability to serve in the military, the ability to donate blood/organs when there is no disease present, the list goes on and on.

It isn't all property rights.

No one is going to force you or your church of choice to recognize homosexuality as valid. They may try to change your mind, but that's hardly forcing anything. You still have your right to be bigoted or not be, homophobic or not be, believe that your religion turns anyone who has gay sex into pink pears, or not.

What it will do is force you to treat them as equals under the law. That's it.

That's hardly a "power trip."

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Then I guess your just a liar.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

Mm-hmm, an ad hominem obviously means you're right.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

(Also - "you're.")

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The fight for equality is always a power struggle.
Those on top wanting to keep inequality are fighting for it.
Those on bottom wanting equality are fighting for it.
Power trip or power struggle is the same thing.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

All valid points.