Subject:
|
Re: More Election Bad News?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:31:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > Actually, the church has no authority to issue legally binding licenses of any
> > sort, except insofar as the church is empowered to do so by the state.
>
> Licenses? Or just recognition of contracts? The state ought not to be granting
> licenses of this sort, merely recognizing contracts. (or in the case of non
> consenting or non adult, NOT recognizing)
>
> This is an example of the more general question... when and where do you have
> standing to file a civil suit?
While I mostly agree with you Larry, are we ready to open this box? If we agree
that government should not interfere with any type of "Union" are we ready to
accept the full repercussions of that decision. The immediate effect would be
the acceptance of homosexual couples, but the next unavoidable consequence is
the acceptance of polygamist units, whether it be one man and many wives, one
woman and many husbands, or some odd combination of the two. What does the
government then do when an apartment or home owner decides that they do not want
to rent to one of these “love commune” types? How about the union of close
relatives? First cousins (currently legal in some states)? Siblings? Parents? I
am not usually a slippery slope kind of guy, but I can see some real dangerous
potential.
As for the propositions and amendments in those 11 states, it should come as no
surprise; California, the most liberal of all states, passed a similar amendment
a few years back. If it passes here, there is a pretty good chance it will stand
up elsewhere.
Still not anti-gay, just trying to be pragmatic.
Scott
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) Hi Scott--haven't seen you in ot-debate for a while... You raise several points, so I'll try to address them in order: If three or ten or fifty people want to marry, why should this trouble me? This type of union may (or may not) be (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) Hahhahahahahahahahah...ahahahhaha ohhohohoheeeheheeegu...ghingmy... Admittedly, it's the state that most conservatives like to whine about because it is big and influential, but most liberal? Don't make me lau...oops, too late. :-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More Election Bad News?
|
| (...) Licenses? Or just recognition of contracts? The state ought not to be granting licenses of this sort, merely recognizing contracts. (or in the case of non consenting or non adult, NOT recognizing) This is an example of the more general (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
