B DeBrun wrote:Fuuckk... could you imagine the uproar if straight folk had to register for a civil union? You think the homos can screech? That would be legendary!
How's that Maine vote going? It's 50-50 based on the polls so far.
I didn't read this thread but simple solution to the above:
Require all couples to get civil unions. That's the legal paper.
Levels the playing field.
And the churchs, etc. will handle the marriage lisenses for those religous ceremonies. Sep. of state/religon here, so state can't impose itself here.
But it can impose itself upon civil unions.
0 Kudo
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor 20+
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows That Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs That Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Obama signs first major federal gay-rights law
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 shiza h minelli |
|||
|
Posts: 2931 (11/03/09 11:32 PM) |
|
||
 Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 25371 (11/04/09 11:20 AM) Registered user |
Toddomination wrote:I doubt it. Straight men fight straight men over women all the time. Straight women fight straight women over men all time. Springer-time. It's not a stretch for some lawyer to argue these are "hate crimes" too, since sexual orientation is clearly at the root of the conflict. A straight man wouldn't fight a gay man for having sex with his girl, since it's less likely to happen. |
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 5811 (11/04/09 11:26 AM) Registered User |
if you beat someone up because you have a dispute with them - not a hate crime. Beat the same person up because they belong to a minority group - hate crime. Is this really that hard to understand? |
||
|
B DeBrun |
|||
|
Posts: 22112 (11/04/09 11:26 AM) |
shiza h minelli wrote: All you have to do is change the word marriage to civil union. It's still the same legal paper. |
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 5812 (11/04/09 11:29 AM) Registered User |
in this fairy tale world of yours, would civil unions be recognized if when we cross state lines? I dont think that is gonna fly either.
|
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 25372 (11/04/09 12:24 PM) Registered user |
Visa Declined wrote:I thought sexual orientation included "straight". So attacking straights is a "hate crime", even if they're not a "minority". |
||
|
RazorrzzEdge |
|||
|
Posts: 5979 (11/04/09 12:43 PM) Registered user |
Visa Declined wrote:Uh, what? O_o Why the fuck wouldn't they? Are marriages recognized across state lines? |
||
|
B DeBrun |
|||
|
Posts: 22113 (11/04/09 12:48 PM) |
Does for example, Texas recognize Mass. gay marriages?
|
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 5816 (11/04/09 12:51 PM) Registered User |
RazorrzzEdge wrote: No, only opposite marriages are recognized across state lines and civil unions not at all. Oh, and Scree is right, I should have used the word protected group rather than minority as neither Christians or heterosexuals are a minority except in most large cities. |
||
|
merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 63217 (11/04/09 12:57 PM) Registered loser |
B DeBrun wrote:With a shotgun! |
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 25375 (11/04/09 1:19 PM) Registered user |
Visa Declined wrote:So, now let's take a look at what your corrected posted would look like: Visa Declined wrote:No, actually, that makes it really clear how arbitrary "hate crimes" are. Want a new "hate crime"? Just define a new "protected group". Really, a "protected group" has no meaning outside of "hate crime" legislation. It's circular. I wish "geeks" were a "protected group" in High School. 
|
||
|
RazorrzzEdge |
|||
|
Posts: 5981 (11/04/09 1:19 PM) Registered user |
If you were to change the norm to civil unions, then civil unions would be recognized across state lines.
|
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 5820 (11/04/09 1:54 PM) Registered User |
Screerider wrote: How is that different from any other crime? You want a new crime, pass a new law. It happens every day. And to the other topic, once you get Texas to recognize same sex civil unions you will have to convince every other country in the world to do the same. Current international laws recognize the legal term marriage but civil unions are a bit murky. I am not sure this is easier than just allowing adults to marry who they want. |
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 25376 (11/04/09 2:07 PM) Registered user |
Visa Declined wrote:See, normally, there's this thing called the Equal Protection Clause that says laws should apply to all US citizens equally. That's what makes this different. |
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 5822 (11/04/09 2:32 PM) Registered User |
are you agruing that all crimes should have the same penalty? Are we allowed to give premediated murderers longer terms than murderers who commit their cirme in the heat of passion? Can we have longer sentences for murderers of policemen? Because we do. How is this any different? |
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 25378 (11/04/09 2:46 PM) Registered user |
1st degree murder is a different charge than 2nd degree murder, hence the different allowed penalties. That some jurisdictions hand out larger sentences
depending on the circumstances (e.g. cops) is really up to them, yet the penalty range is the same for the same crime. "Hate Crimes" arbitrarily and
unnecessarily push the penalty ranges up based on presumption of motive. If you adjust the base range up for "special" cases, you should push them up
for all cases... to be fair.
|
||
|
Teeanday |
|||
|
Posts: 4636 (11/04/09 3:28 PM) Registered User |
shiza h minelli wrote: just to settle something: big·ot (bĭg'ət) 
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. shiza, look in the mirror, see the bigot now? |
||
|
Visa Declined |
|||
|
Posts: 5832 (11/04/09 3:50 PM) Registered User |
Screerider wrote: Arbitrary implies that there is no basis for it. Hate crime legislation is based on the theory that crimes targeting a specific group of society are different than crimes targeting an individual. This basis may or may not warrant a separate legal designation but that does not make it any more or less arbitrary than any other legal distinction allowed by law. Also, although crimes may be prosecuted based on the presumption of motives, a jury needs to find that the crimes were indeed motivated by hate toward a particular group of society. All that said, I do agree that this is mostly about pandering to democrat interest groups. I also think opposition is mostly about pandering to republican interest groups. I dont recall republican outrage over increasing penalties for any other crimes (drug dealers, etc). |
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 25379 (11/04/09 4:00 PM) Registered user |
You got it. And I'd say the pandering is what makes them arbitrary. Different agendas, different "special" victims.
I understand wanting to combat bigotry, but education is the way to go. And by separating victims into classes, it will just feed more bigotry. Reminds me of how Affirmative Action combats racism with institutionalized racism. We'll never be equal if the law doesn't treat us equally. |
||
|
Teeanday |
|||
|
Posts: 4638 (11/04/09 4:03 PM) Registered User |
like i said at the very beginning of the thread, nothing to see here
then shiza had a hissy and almost ten pages later we're back to NOTHING TO SEE HERE |
||
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor 20+
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows That Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs That Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
