No. They have to Choose to be a party to a suit. For instance they walked away from the Black panthers voter intimidation case...rather than see it through
Look...let's be very clear what this is about. This is not about the right of two people to live together, commingle funds, file taxes and leave property and have hospital visitation. Wherever Civil Unions enforcing the same rights are broached, it's rejected by the parties that claim to value those rights. This is about an extreme left position, that seeks to take a very specific term, with deep spiritual connotations to a large majority of this countries citizens, and in their eyes pervert it. Period. And it's wrong and deeply offensive to any right thinking person. I am as conservative as you get. You know that. I fully support the rights of any two people to live together in misery as they see fit, and enjoy the same privleges and heartaches that commitment entails. But this is not that, this is a nasty, almost evil argument over SEMANTICS. The enlightened left refers to it as 'the right to self define'. As long as it's pursued in this context it will always fail, and the ones that will suffer are the people who just want to be together and be left alone. More victims of the intellectual lefts intransigence.
Putting aside your feelings for that case, that wasn't a challenge to voter intimidation laws being unconstitutional. The JD just chose not to enforce the law as it stands. That's different than a court case challenging a federal law as unconstitutional, which I still think the JD has to defend, with few exceptions: http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com...artments-Duty-to-Defend-Federal-Statutes.html Last I checked the supreme court has largely stayed out of the Gay Marriage debate, so there was no real prior precedence against DOMA that would force the Justice Department to recuse itself.
Yep. Nothing but a case of "semantics". This wouldn't even be a problem if it were just called civil unions...
I'm sorry, why is that specific term and its deep spiritual connotations off limits to a section of society? And you got the terminology wrong in the last sentence, by "right thinking person" you actually meant "person who thinks like me".
Because it is a very specific term and is to many, a religious sacrament. Defiling in that manner (especially given the context of the argument) is a particularly grievous insult. Seeking to defile a a religious sacrament is offensive period. Are their view less valid, because you don't agree with their beliefs? No. Specifically going out of your way to insult people, especially when it's not necessary, but as a matter of practicing ideology should be wrong to anyone.
I agree, I think it's deeply offensive that you and your kind continue to insult gay people by telling them that they're not worthy of marriage, when as you say it's completely unnecessary. Unless, that is, you define your marriage, your partnership, your communion by that of others, which you must agree would be an utterly perverse thing to do? One of the best things about holding a liberal viewpoint on most things is listening to the anguished cries of the thwarted bigots.
I think California had a really cool, but ultimately failing, argument, when it tried to sell gay marriage to the people as an income generator. Pretty inventive. Massachusetts did it the wrong way - through the courts. But there was at least a modest legal argument to be made. Then it screwed it up further, when a couple hundred thousand signed a petition to put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, and the governor and legislature pocketed the petition and refused to let it go forward. People were rightly furious. But that's water under the bridge, and if Massachusetts keeps electing the same bunch of anti-democratic creeps, then THAT's democracy in action as well. If this change to allow gay people to have something called "marriage" is important to one or more of the states, then it should become law. In those states. As long as someone doesn't decide to invent a federal right to gay marriage, I'm perfectly fine with the way the issue is growing - or not growing, depending on the state. This decision, while seemingly pro-gay marriage, is actually a really good result for the anti-gay marriage people, because it says exactly what I'm saying here: states determine what "marriage" is, and the federal gub'mint has no business injecting itself into the relationship between the states and their citizens. Pretty cool result, actually. I mean, if it sticks. Seems to me, that opinion won't get much traction from either the pro or anti side.
Hey, I can't answer for Gov.Lingle, I can only say she's wrong. The bill was passed with decent support, and she took the cowards way out by saying the people should decide, because she knows a referendum would never pass. Too much of the argument in this particular state, also has to do with counting dollars coming in vs. dollars not coming in. I noticed however you ignored the multitude of states that actually do have Civil Union laws. Much of the arguments are presented here, along with the states you decided to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
To begin with your initial supposition is nonsensical. Me and My kind? I'm fairly libertarian on the issue. Except when it comes time to defile someone's religion. That's wrong. gay people aren't unworthy of marriage. many Gay people do marry. Take Tom Cruise for instance. Same sex couples don't fit the definition which predates Western civilization. Can't change that. All of civilization is defined by fairly if not precisely established norms. That's what makes it civilization. Apparently having a liberal viewpoint includes two things, the right to selective bigotry (your religious animus shows..me and my kind? I'm no thumper...) and a less than precise use of the language. (which coming from someone across the pond is especially disheartening.)
It's funny watching people clamor over a word they think they own. By the way, where is the religous outrage on this board about people using the term "Revis Christ"?
Oh there was definitely a healthy thread dedicated to that topic, although I can't seem to find it at the moment, worth a read if you've got a couple of hours
Missed that one. It's just words people, your interpretation may be different than others, but in the end...just a word. What if gay people start calling dinner "communion". Can you imagine the outrage?
I think I found it.... http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=51779&highlight=Revis+Christ+blasphemy Is this the one?
umm it's not! they choose not to be defined by it. If they like they can marry (a member of the oppisite sex) but they choose another path and thus chose not to be defined by the term. They are now seeking to change the definition for their own.
