better him than me

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

That is not true. Terms with clear legal definitions are often different in scope (narrower or broader, depending) than their common use in society. Sometimes, the legal definition is even at odds with a term's commonly accepted meaning.

So, defining marriage as X simply means that the law will only view X as a marriage. Couples, families, churches, groups, whatever can still have marriage ceremonies and recognize it/them and live accordingly. The marriage just would not be reconized under the law as such.

Right, B, but churches, groups, families, etc. don't grant legal rights, custody rights, inheritance rights, health care rights, and any other of hundreds of rights that are only conferred by legal marriage. This is the thing- if, God forbid, Mary Cheney would die while the child was still a minor, her other parent would have NO legal rights to the child, to Mary's estate, to any sort of rights that a couple that's been together as long as they have should have. None. And this is what the Republicans are pushing for- for gay couples to have no legal rights. And a constitutional amendment would put that into law. And so, here you have one of the leaders of the party pushing to ensure gay couples have no legal rights, who happens to have a daughter who is having a child with her lesbian partner, who will have no legal rights to their child. Getting marriage recognized legally is FAR, FAR more important than by a church or a family group or whatever.

Though frankly, with all the work Mary Cheney does for the Republicans, I'm more interested in how she justifies all her work to herself than how her dad does.

And in spite of all that, I wish her an easy pregnancy and her and her partner a beautiful baby.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

1) That is beyond my point. No one was trying to ban gay marriage.

2) And?

3) Isn't the push to have gay marriages legally recognized also rooted in some moral belief(s) as well? So, trying to get them legally recognized is also trying to force your moral beliefs on others? I mean, if you argue they are "wrong", then you must feel in the "right"... ie the same thing leftists accuse those on the right of.

4) Also, using conventional (and mostly leftist) political philosophy, one can certainly make arguments as to why heto marriage should be recognized above any other kind of marriage (wrt the law). Goose. Gander.

You sound like Alberto Gonzales, with his assertion that Americans never had any right to habeus corpus, because the only reference to it is under what circumstances it can be taken away. That line of thinking can also be applied to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Do you want to go down that road? By establishing "marriage" as hetero only, you are banning marriage rights from two people of same sex. And ultimately, it comes down to the rights conferred by marriage. And they're a big deal.

Yes, you can make the moral argument-- many people, for example, thought it was immoral for a white woman to marry a black man, and the laws reflected that. Did that make the laws moral, or right?

For all of our desperate grasp for a universal truth, the fact is, as we learn more about human nature, we have to be willing to reexamine our views of what is normal. Child marriage used to be acceptable, and now it's not (well, not in most states, anyway)because we know more about childhood. Slavery used to be acceptable and now it's not. Beating your wife used to be not only acceptable, but required if you wanted her to get to heaven.

I fail to see what is immoral about letting two consenting adults who want to commit to each other do so, regardless of sex. I see no reason whatsoever to limit marriage to man and wife-- I don't buy the "marriage is for reproduction" argument, because then why permit marriage between man and woman past childbearing years, or between people with fertitily problems? And then why permit people to raise kids alone? Heck, why didn't the state just take away me and my brother after my mom died, since my dad was then a single parent? And while you're on the morality thing, why permit divorce for any reason other than adultery, since that's the only reason Jesus officially listed as acceptable?

In addition, marriage between two people has a stabilizing effect on society- it keeps people mellow to have someone in their lives. China is getting very anxious about the vast outnumbering of women by men thanks to the one-child-only policy and the fact that lots of parents aborted female fetuses so they could have a boy. There is now concern about future gangs of radical young men with no chance for a wife- frustrated sexual energy can mutate into all kinds of unpleasant things- look at what radical Wahhibism has done to young Muslim men. Let people pair off, for the love of Pete. Married couples are usually better off financially and in better health later in life. It's good for the country's economic and political health.

Now, yes, my belief that gay marriage should be permitted is based in moral beliefs too-- that all people should be treated equally and if it's unfair to prohibit different races from mine from marrying whom they want, it's unfair to prohibit people of different sexual preferences from marrying whom they want. (who they want?)

Fun trivia-- the laws against interracial marriage were overturnrd in Loving Vs. Virginia (1960) because the law only specifically banned whites from marrying anyone other than whites, and the Supreme Court declared that discriminatory... against whites.

All Cheney had to say is I disagree with some of my party's more Neanderthal members. But he is a good party man. Blitzer and Cheney both know what the situation is. And so do the Republicans that hate the fact that Cheney was "blessed with such a wonderful daughter".

[timmgirvan]

Blitzer was still smarting from dealing with Lynne Cheney, so he tried to show up the VP. Didn't go too well, did it? BTW..."Moses,out of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so"...Matthew 19:8.