conservativevoice #fundie

conservativevoice #fundie fstdt.com

*making a comment to "Human rights should not be put on a ballot."*

Ken,

No one denied homosexuals any human right with this vote. A gay person can still love anyone they wish, live with them, have any career they want, live where ever they want, etc.

The problem with the gay rights movement is they keep expanding what has been know as both civil and human rights.....that is what is scaring off middle america. Since fundies make up a small percentage even of christians, it takes a lot of voters who are NOT fundies and NOT homophobes to vote something like this in.

44 comments

old comment by David B.

IANA(HR)L, but...

Yes, same-sex marriage is not a human right(1), that's not the point.

Equal treatment in law - irrespective of ones sex, colour, age or sexual orientation - is a human right however(2). To deny a gay partner the same legal standing as a straight one would be a breach of that right.

If a civil partner is in all legal respects the equal of a spouse (which, IFAIK, is not the case) then, yes, no right is being explicitly violated. But then, if a civil partner is in all respects the equal of a spouse, why not call them a spouse?

Also, I strongly suspect that those people so whipped up against same-sex marriages would be equally 'offended' by the concept of a civil partner being the equal of a husband or wife, even if only before the law.

(1. Article 16.1: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.)

(2. Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.)

old comment by John-in-Oz

Who the fuck approved this?
He clearly expresses the viewpoint of many reasonable non-fundie voters.
We should recognize that fact and rather than attempt to ridicule his viewpoint, should offer equally as reasonable counter-argument.
Not fundie- and the 'darnedest things' are from our side, not his.
I disagree with him, but appreciate his honest statement of opinion. I think we all should.
For myself, as I understand it, the effect of the vote is to create a 'separate but equal' situation. I am certain that there are many situations where the prerogatives of marriage will be denied to gay people as a result of prop 8 despite civil unions. As I've said before, gay men do not have equal rights with his sister, to marry the man they love. The fact conservativevoice doesn't want that right doesn't change the fact he doesn't have it- and that some people do want that right.

old comment by dg

Well the first statement is true if you don't consider marriage a "human right", which depends on how you define human right.

The Supreme Court did make the statement TheOutsider quotes (in Loving v. Virginia), but IMO that's an example of making the right decision with the wrong support (something they do a lot). As it stands, the Supreme Court could (sadly) reverse that decision with no more basis than looking through the Constitution and saying "hmm, no right to marriage here", which is why I wish they would use something more constitutionally based - like equal protection of the laws - to make equal-rights decisions.

Also, I read the top sentence as "Human rights should not be put on a toilet."

old comment by CT

@Helena "CT says homosexuals still can't get some legal protections afforded to married couples. What would these be? I imagine that everything a married couple gets could be had through living wills, powers of attorney, legal name changes, if they wish, and other legal documents or contracts."

Oh yes, they can have all of those... but have you any idea just how easy it is for relatives to contest and overturn a lot of them? Wills, for example... it's incredible just how often they get challenged and overturned, and if they die without a will? A married couple it all goes to the surviving spouse, with a gay couple, it goes to a family member instead no matter what the surviving partner says. Fair, isn't it? (need marriage for that, and they've been denied that)

Automatic right to visit their partner in Hospital, Automatic right to be their next of kin... there's a huge amount of AUTOMATIC rights that they would have to jump through hoops to obtain, all because they've been denied marriage. And even when they DO obtain those rights, they STILL have problems because all too many Hospitals don't recognise them!

All in all, they get denied a huge amount, even after getting legal documents... because the only legal document that confers the undeniable rights is that Marriage Certificate. Anything else can be contested and overturned, and is all too frequently.

old comment by blackgem

@Helena

Other than the fact that they would have to go through complicated and expensive processes to gain all these rights which heterosexual couples don't? Furthermore there is question as to how effectively you would be able to get equal protection. Certainly by going through the rights case by case you are going to miss some. Also there is no guarantee private organisations (such as employers or hospitals) would be forced to recognise these, which they have to with married couples.

One which you cannot cover effectively otherwise (and requires federal law reform) however is immigration. If I were to marry/civil partner (British law considers them equal) an american woman for example, I would not be able to then go and live with my partner in the US (without fulfilling the various immigration requirements independently). If I were to marry an american man, I could.

conservativevoice #fundie fstdt.com

44 comments

Confused?