|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 144 of 191:
| 
Sep 20 04:58 UTC 2003 |
Don't know of any country that condones polygamy except the Muslim ones. And
if theri country is ok with it, I don't see why any other government should
object. Now if they wanted to become citizens of the US, I can see why a stink
would be raised.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 191:
|
Sep 20 05:17 UTC 2003 |
Why?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 146 of 191:
|
Sep 20 06:27 UTC 2003 |
Gay marriages aren't condoned by the federal govt. If you're a citizen, you
need to abide by the rules. (If you become resident of a state that allows
gay marriages, I guess it would be ok)
|
bru
|
|
response 147 of 191:
|
Sep 20 22:21 UTC 2003 |
Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture are now merged into one organization.
We have not changed uniforms yet, but we have all always been crossed trained
in other departments. Customs ghas always had the right to make such
decisions. Think of it as working in a department store. You are an expert
in one area, but you can still act in another.
Customs also has immense power at the border. That is why we get to search
your cars and individuals (even strip searches) without warrants.
Fine, they wanted to provoke a confrontation and they got one. Whether it
stands up under federal law is one for Ashcroft and his attorneys to decide.
My guess is that it will hold up. I am sure the inspector did not make this
decision in a vacuum, that other supervisory inspectors were there to advise
him.
Also, i would have to look this up, but it is my belief that people from
countries that allow multiple wives, are only allowed to claim one unless they
are a diplomat.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 148 of 191:
|
Sep 21 06:07 UTC 2003 |
The Defense of Marriage Act, adopted and signed in 1996, is the only
relevant federal law. It has not, however, been tested in the courts (but
that is developing). There are unconstitutional aspects of the Act, among
which is the constitutional requirement of "full faith" between states and
their laws. The major opposition comes from religious organizations, for
religious reasons. These are arbitrary and certainly not automatically
relevant to the common social good.
Most important, there are no sensible reasons to forbide such marriages.
It certainly has zero effect upon opposite-sex marriages and, in fact, it
furthers the wish of many to increase the stability of families.
One argument used against same-sex marriages is that marriage is concerned
with procreation and the protection of children. However it is not also
argued that married opposite-sex couples must have children, or even
attempt to have children: certainly no laws mandate that. In addition,
same-sex couples currently adopt children, and provide them with stable
families, a desirable social goal.
More states are adopting laws that convey legal rights to same-sex
"married" couples.
I expect that when it finally reaches the Supreme Court, the Act will be
found unconstitutional. This is why there is all the frantic effort by
religious organizations to further a constitutional amendment. If that
even comes to the states, I expect the majority of people will have
concluded that there is no harm to anyone from same-sex marriages.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 149 of 191:
|
Sep 21 08:01 UTC 2003 |
I'd be quite shocked if the Defense of Marriage Act were invalidated
by the current Supreme Court..
|
i
|
|
response 150 of 191:
|
Sep 21 08:04 UTC 2003 |
Don't several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage
in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children (for known
medical reasons, or she's just too old)?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 151 of 191:
|
Sep 21 19:12 UTC 2003 |
once you start talking about folks far enough out on the fringe to
warrant putting scare quotes around "Christian" you could be talking
about groups with nearly every kind of marriage practices you can
think of..
|
i
|
|
response 152 of 191:
|
Sep 21 23:06 UTC 2003 |
Re: #151
I suggest that you start reading more. Start by Googling on "Henry",
"Roman Catholic Church", and "Church of England".
You may also want to read a bit about the words & deeds of Jesus in
the first three gospels and compare them to the behaviors of various
self-styled Christian churches. The freaky fringe is the only place
where you can find people actually trying to follow the teachings &
example of Jesus. For a quick example, read Matthew 6.
|
klg
|
|
response 153 of 191:
|
Sep 22 01:01 UTC 2003 |
We find Mr. rcurl, once again, throwing the baby out with the bath
water.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 154 of 191:
|
Sep 22 01:33 UTC 2003 |
re #152:
> I suggest that you start reading more.
You got me.. Ask anyone who knows me and they'll definitely tell you
I'm nearly illiterate and notoriously misinformed..
Perhaps you can help clear up some of my notorious ignorance by explaining
(in short, simple sentences, please..) how you think the schism which divided
the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic church applies to your point
that 'several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage
in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children.' I am unaware
that either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church follows such
a policy and am so benighted that I was under the impression that Henry's
dissent with the Roman Catholic Church was over the Church's refusal to
annul a marriage on grounds of infertility, not over refusing to *perform*
one on grounds of infertility..
> You may also want to read a bit about the words & deeds of Jesus in
> the first three gospels and compare them to the behaviors of various
> self-styled Christian churches. The freaky fringe is the only place
> where you can find people actually trying to follow the teachings &
> example of Jesus. For a quick example, read Matthew 6.
This still doesn't explain to me why you insisted on the odd scare quotes
around "Christian" in your previous response. Perhaps you intended them
to convey some impression other than the one that I formed, in which case
your intended meaning escaped me utterly.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 155 of 191:
|
Sep 22 17:53 UTC 2003 |
Yes, please do come up with something specific about any "Christian" sect that
would forbid marriage based on inability to have children, where that can't
be know ahead of time, given that both husband and wife enter the marriage
as virgins. Go ahead, give it your best shot.
|
bru
|
|
response 156 of 191:
|
Sep 22 22:27 UTC 2003 |
Fire away!
|
other
|
|
response 157 of 191:
|
Sep 22 23:29 UTC 2003 |
Apparently a right-wing group has filed a lawsuit, based on the Michigan
1996 Defense of Marriage Act, against the Ann Arbor Public Schools
because of their provision of health benefits to same sex partners, which
the plaintiffs claim equates those relationships with marriage in
violation of the law.
So, the fucking idiots will eat into the already strained resources of
the school system just because they know that the schools might concede
the point rather than engage in a protracted and expensive court fight.
|
tod
|
|
response 158 of 191:
|
Sep 22 23:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 159 of 191:
|
Sep 23 00:04 UTC 2003 |
I didn't say they weren't. And I don't agree that what they're wasting
money to stop is indeed a waste. I believe it is an investment in
improving the quality of the education available to students in the AAPS.
|
bru
|
|
response 160 of 191:
|
Sep 23 01:57 UTC 2003 |
It is indeed a waste on from both sides.
If they are going to extend domestic partnerships, they shoulkd offer it to
everyone, no matter their orientation or situation, or just give it to those
people who are married.
|
i
|
|
response 161 of 191:
|
Sep 23 02:50 UTC 2003 |
(Re: #154/155/etc.
Start with the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, Book 4,
Part 1, Title 7, Chapter 3, Can. 1084.
If you prefer, i can use 'Christian (sic)' instead of '"Christian"'.
Would you view either 'People's Democratic Republic (sic)' or
'"People's Democratic Republic"' as valid (if editorial) usages in
the context of a Stalinist dictatorship?)
|
tod
|
|
response 162 of 191:
|
Sep 23 04:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 163 of 191:
|
Sep 23 06:13 UTC 2003 |
The extension of health and other benefits to domestic partners would make
most sense if such partnerships were also legally recognized in Michigan.
It makes sense for married couples because of the legal rights and
responsibilities between such couples. This would also be the case with
same-sex married couples. Therefore an objective should be the adoption
of a Michigan law equivalent to Vermont's and California's, creating
unisex marriages.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 164 of 191:
|
Sep 23 07:41 UTC 2003 |
re #161: are you talking about the same Canon 1084 that specifically
states: "Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility
neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage"? [We began this rather
pointless digression when Walter posed the question 'Don't several
"Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage in cases
where the couple wouldn't be able to have children' and I expect from
his decision to introduce Roman Catholic Canon Law to support his
point he believes the Catholic Church to be one of the "Christian"
groups he has in mind.]
As to your latter point, whatever it may be, whether you write it as
' "Christian" ' (with scare quotes) or 'Christian (sic)' I still don't
understand what you're trying to imply, unless it's that Roman Catholicism
isn't legitimately Chrstian by your own personal definition. If that's
where you're going with this I'm willing to concede ahead of time that
I'm not at all interested in debating you over your own private usage rules.
|
gull
|
|
response 165 of 191:
|
Sep 23 13:41 UTC 2003 |
Re #147: Bru, any comment on whether they'd be guilty of a crime if they
lied on their customs forms by indicating they were single? This
strikes me as a bit of a catch-22 situation.
Re #149: Me too. But on the other hand, they did overturn Texas's
anti-sodomy law. (Which surprised me.)
Re #162: Does their policy favor homosexual partnerships over other
partnerships? It seems to me they're just elevating partnership
relationships to the same status as marriages, which is of course what
the lawsuit is about. The fair thing to do, of course, would be to
simply not provide health benefits to anyone except the employee. This
would save even more money in the budget you're so concerned about.
|
slynne
|
|
response 166 of 191:
|
Sep 23 14:03 UTC 2003 |
It seems to me that an employer should be able to compensate their
employees anyway they wish. Gull is right of course that the only
really fair thing is to simply not provide health insurance benefits to
anyone except the employee. Otherwise married people end up with total
compensation packages that are greater than those for single people. In
other words, they end up being paid more.
|
remmers
|
|
response 167 of 191:
|
Sep 23 15:04 UTC 2003 |
"...an employer should be able to compensate their employees anyway
they wish." For example, by giving less compensation to non-Caucasians
for the same work?
|
tod
|
|
response 168 of 191:
|
Sep 23 15:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|