Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner
|
Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner
|
11-23-2008, 06:09 PM
I think it is sad that the Republican party is so lacking in imagination and constructive ideas to help this country that instead they have to offer fear-mongering and hate just to keep their party alive. How about if they put this sort of money and energy into solving the economic crisis? Whoops, I forgot, they are dumping that onto the next administration, along with the wars they began and the ill-will they bred around the world.
11-23-2008, 06:53 PM
swampy wrote: The American Revolution was a temper tantrum.
11-23-2008, 07:32 PM
samintx wrote: By your thinking, can a majority of people vote in anything they wish?
11-23-2008, 07:48 PM
swampy wrote: They just want to be happy and go on with life, like everyone else. Have legal rights, get married, all that important stuff. But that is reserved for "traditional" Americans. Some republicans must still cringe when they see a bi-racial marriage.
11-23-2008, 08:04 PM
swampy wrote: a nice audio book, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau http://ejunto.com/thoreau.html I guess you also forgot the Boston Tea Party.
11-23-2008, 08:49 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " How many state and local laws, federal laws, contracts, insurance policies, wills etc. are there based on this definition of marriage? How are current legal instruments affected if this definition changed? Gay "civil unions" are fine with me. Give them the same legal rights, but under a different definition such that it is a union between two people of the same sex, and "spouse" refers only to a person of the same sex who is a partner in the civil union. There's no need to redefine my union of choice.
11-23-2008, 10:45 PM
> How many state and local laws, federal laws, contracts,
> insurance policies, wills etc. are there based on this > definition of marriage? How are current legal instruments > affected if this definition changed? It's very easy to adapt 99.99% of those things to a new legal fabric. You just write one law that says that all other laws are to be interpreted wherever possible in a gender-neutral fashion. They do stuff like that all the time. As for the insurance policies, those are private contracts, not laws. Insurance policies, trusts and living wills are how people are currently getting by until their unions are recognized by the state.
11-23-2008, 10:55 PM
I just question the need to change the substance of a law and tradition that had stood for centuries.
The current law apparently applies to straight hertosexual couples. I consider it "my" law. Make a new law to cover the needs of gays. Don't change mine.
11-23-2008, 10:58 PM
swampy wrote: Gay "civil unions" are fine with me. Give them the same legal rights, but under a different definition such that it is a union between two people of the same sex, and "spouse" refers only to a person of the same sex who is a partner in the civil union. So the issue is one of language? If we defined "highway" to include what we now mean by "street," would this be a comparable situation for you? |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
