I was making no analogy to slavery. My analogy was that your "the will of the people" is meaningless if the proposition they pass is unconstitutional.
Again, that would be mandated by Oregon. I'm not sure if Oregon would recognize the married structure. Would they? Across the board? Say they went to Texas, would they recognize them as a legally married couple?
Fine, but you're still going to have gay marriage, thanks to the Unitarian Universalists. edit: the problem is that this Prop 8 blocks that from happening. That's why this is so disappointing.
Now you are so entrenched in your position that you are turning yourself in knots to make it come out right. Face it; there is nothing equal about this; the idea of granting civil unions is just to make you feel good about yourself.
eric, I apologize for sinlging you out; I don't mean to make you defensive. Your viewpoint is obviously shared by many, and I guess you could even consider it the "mainstream" argument. But it is wrong, plain and simple. And I submit two things: (1) The young generation is geometrically more accepting of gays and interested in extending gay rights to include marriage than the older generation; and (2) this is an issue which will therefore increasingly haunt the GOP over the coming decades until they get their act together.
What is wrong here? All rights are the same. No one seems to understand that. Its a simple difference in term of calling it a civil union and married couples. If there were a federal vote that allowed all duplicative rights for homosexual couples as a civil union, I would support that. I believe there is a lot of fear mongering and misinformation on both sides. The "No on 8" side is also guilty of many it. Nothing is going to "haunt" anyone. My position is the same as Barack Obama's regarding civil unions and marriage, so I fail to see the GOP doom and gloom of all of this. And as was mentioned earlier, a republican california governor opposed this.
Nope. It just won't be recognized legally as a "marriage", but as a civil union. They can do whatever the hell they want to in their church.
First, his position is wrong, too. Second, you make a good point about the difference between state rights and federal rights. Once federal rights are extended to partners of civil unions, and every state is required to extend the same rights to civil partners who were unioned(?) in other states as they do for married couples, then it truly will become a matter of semantics. But until then, there is a disconnect; you'd be creating a sub-class of people that are entitled to some rights in some parts of the country and other rights in other parts (and not entitled to certain federal benefits, to boot). It partly comes down to timing.
