Recent Court Decisions in New York and Washington States? - washington state gay cruise spots
I have this question 2 weeks ago and was quite surprised that someone was monitoring this category, the answer (and was surprised by the percentage of respondents who homophobic venom) to pay only for me. I try again:
In the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court briefs by the petitioners concerning the rights of homosexuals in the recent decision of New York and Washington, suits or gay marriage, proponents of civil unions as a standard and explained that calls for their own writings " civil unions "would not be acceptable (and thus determine each of the two courts that no other definition of" marriage "is a prerogative of the legislature)?
FYI, I'm just (really super straight!), But live in two provinces that have same-sex marriage, and II have no problem with him, because the deadline. But I wonder whether gay marriage crusaders cut off your nose to spite their faces are, at this point. Unlike the Jim Crow laws, including laws on civil unions in CT, VT and Europe affirming language.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Washington State Gay Cruise Spots Recent Court Decisions In New York And Washington States?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The main argument is always that state laws that protect deny same-sex couples access to marriage in violation of constitutional law in their states, equal access / right.
Civil unions as an independent legal institution for a minority, that is the question of separate but equal. Despite the fact that different jurisdictions do not allow that same-sex couples to marry, like Canada and Massachusetts recognizes and guarantees the full rights of marriage for persons who have participated in a civil entity in another jurisdiction, is discriminatory, so simple. This is the fight for full marriage rights is problematic because state government does not recognize civil unions, which could constitute an obstacle in the fight for full legal recoFoundation access to same-sex couples all the rights married couples enjoy. The idea that civil unions are "separate but equal" is an illusion, since they are still denied the right to equality of marriage are the federal government.
My husband and I were married in Canada for almost two years. I agree with the idea that no one thinks of, they have the right to define my relationship with him too uncomfortable. Can you imagine moving somewhere and being told they can not rely on his wife, his wife, because they recognize that the relationship with them? I am sure that you are referring to.
Speaking of Jim Crow laws, did you know that interracial marriage used to be illegal? And take a wild guess, what was the reason, dass "Protecting the sanctity of marriage".
Perhaps you remember some of the words in the decision Brown v. Board of Education:
"Separate but equal is never equal."
History teaches us that institutional separation of a minority, we are second class citizens. There is no other work.
One might say: "Yes, why can not we just give the same rights as marriage, but call ... nothing!"
The reason is that the previous separation of other doors open. After the separation of the wedding, what now? "Now GayCan not get "married", then perhaps we should give them their own restaurants as well ... "
Believe it or not, have tried a number of cities, homosexuality (so absurd as it sounds care).
I am an honest man, mind, and I live in the only place in America, not separated homosexuals - Massachusetts. It works quite well.
Quite simply, there is no good reason to marry gay prevent (and to activate a very good shape argument to it: discrimination between the sexes).
It is unreasonable to separate marriage on the arbitrary and unreasonable discontent of part of the population. Some people like the idea of homosexual marriages, but it does not matter how OTHEA married person is your concern, if you can not really prove that damage to the other,) what is not (.
But civil rights are to their own cause by insisting that not defeat the rights? Maybe. But it is the sort of thing is not worth it if you do not do well, people must be given to a particular part of the claims as bad as no rights.
There is simply no reason to believe "civil unions" do not have the force of the legal consequences of marriage. To accept anything less is what to accept the classification of same-sex couples as less valuable or less important than the marriage.
Marriage laws to exclude or restrict eligibility based on reproduction or the ability to procreate with your partner.
No "rights or protection as provided by law that restrictions only on the basis of sex. (With the possible exception of abortion laws, but quite another to say you can not sell the license to abort)
However, there is no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry if they so wish.
Maybe I should be gaining ground in Wisconsin, if you decide to start the discrimination against us. We were the first state to legislate against discrimination, ... to allow the next state to ban gay marriage and complete end to all civil unions and gay forbids marriage. The ban will be put to the vote must be stopped. just because other Midwest have the right, we have in Wisconsin the right to the tradition as kind to others and everything we think do to live. If not, you should lol mass.
What is this?
Post a Comment