Why not talk about candidates that have a chance at making the ticket?
Is there a recognized religion which includes it?
So as long as blacks are given the same number of drinking fountains as whites, thereby having the same equal rights, that's okay with you?
And how is that going to work with private business? Can you stop an insurance company from offering spousal coverage to married people and not to civil unions if their definitions are legally separate?
There are none....
We'll see. It will be tough as Obama secures his base with class warfare
LAst time I checked we don't have recognized or un-recognized religions in this country.
If government must be in the marriage business, it must be for a reason that truly "promotes the general welfare". It's hard to see how monogamous relationships, particularly in the GLBT community, don't promote the general welfare.
Conversely I'd support the government ONLY issuing civil unions to couples, straight or gay. Getting out of the "marriage" business altogether and leaving it to the various churches seems like the most equitable solution.
The status quo is that every citizen has the right to enter into a contract with whomever they choose and have it recognized as a contract by their government. If there is to be a restriction on who one can enter into a contract with it must be for a more constitutionally valid and acceptable reason than, essentially, "the Bible says so".
Calling liberals 'waging class warfare' is like calling American native American history 'the war by Natives on the whites'. It's perverse, and wrong. Class war is waged by the rich.
zsdersw - I am curious to know what you think about K1052's proposal. The government only issues civil unions and issues the same type regardless of sexual orientation. If you want a 'marriage' you can get one at a church or whatever that may or may not be recognized by other chruches/religions but you would still need a government civil union that is recognized by all states (and is the same one that would be issues to a gay couple)
It is class warfare, and I realize your tactic is to deny that it's taking place by the left. I mean that's what you have done your whole life as a left leaning person, blame others for your problems, blame someone else when caught doing something, blame your upbringing for the issues you have.
I get it, calling others "intolerant" when in fact it is you being intolerant, calling others "Racist" when in fact is it you being racist.
You are either delusional or you're disingenuous.
LAst time I checked we don't have recognized or un-recognized religions in this country.
With the above principles in mind, the Court thinks that the Church of Wicca is clearly a religion for first amendment purposes. Members of the Church sincerely adhere to a fairly complex set of doctrines relating to the spiritual aspect of their lives, and in doing so they have "ultimate concerns" in much the same way as followers of more accepted religions. Their ceremonies and leader structure, their rather elaborate set of articulated doctrine, their belief in the concept of another world, and their broad concern for improving the quality of life for others gives them at least some facial similarity to other more widely recognized religions. While there are certainly aspects of Wiccan philosophy that may strike most people as strange or incomprehensible, the mere fact that a belief may be unusual does not strip it of constitutional protection. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Church of Wicca, of which the plaintiff is a sincere follower, is a religion for the purpose of the free exercise clause.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/dettmer-v-landon-1#ixzz1fraf9qAKIn order to overcome plaintiff's interest in practicing his religion, the state must show (1) a "compelling state interest" to justify the governmental interference with a religious practice; and (2) the unavailability of a less restrictive alternative which would adequately resolve the conflict.
Marriage doesn't have to equal monogamy...
You're a liar. Nuff said.
That's perfectly acceptable to me. I also think it's the only logical way to handle it.
No, but even polygamy is relatively the same as monogamy in the GLBT world.
I know, just from my own personal experience, polygamy with even 10 spouses would be a very very small number compared to the total number of people I've had sexual relations with.
Agreed. The church would still be allowed to perform civil unions, and they can issue a marriage certificate along with the civil union certificate.
Everyone wins. Unfortunately, that is not what the gay rights groups are fighting for...so they continue to lose.
Well, let's be realistic. GLBT Americans are continuing to make progress on this issue and others. It's a generational shift; in time they will not "lose" on this issue at all.
What I meant by lose is that they could already have the rights at this very moment instead of in 10 or 15 years if they did not make the battle over the use of a word instead of over the actual rights.
Due to this, they are losing...when they could have already won.
Anyone who argues otherwise isn't paying attention. I repeat, again, Conservative America...you are on the wrong side of history. Just like you were with slavery, civil rights, women's rights, etc.