Why are the "No on 9" protestors not protesting in black neighborhoods

and New Jersey

That's one of my biggest pet-peeves. Like, wtf people.

 

again, if actual rights were being taken away, maybe. but to compare the term "marriage" to being forced to piss in "negro-only" bathrooms is insulting to blacks, and they have voiced this concern.

 

X, you say too many ridiculous things in this thread that I don't even know where to begin...besides all of your gross assumptions and weak parallels, what are your true objectives/points?!

 

This is an opinion thread.

I think the No on 9 protesters should protest against a group that was shown, by a huge margin to be opposed to them and not just against the mormons.

 

9 or 8?

 

I meant 8. dunno why I think 9.

 

A right has been taken away, the right to get married.

 

no, its just the "term" marriage is different.

a domestic partnership is exactly the same as marriage, which is for a man and a woman.

 

...don't confuse "marriage" with "traditional marriage" as this is not a black and white definition

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

 

We have already concluded that they are not the same. Imagine that the driver's license for everyone named "Eric" was just good in California, and that Erics couldn't drive when they crossed state borders, unlike anyone with any other name. Would you feel happy that you were subject to equal rights as non-Erics?

 

according to the state of california, you are incorrect.

 

Again, will Texas recognize a "gay marriage" recognized in California as being completely valid in Texas? Once again, this has to do with a state's definition of the term, which may not transfer from state to state. Otherwise, since it is legal in Massachucetes, then it would be legal everywhere and there is nothing to worry about. Right?

 

I believe marriage is one of the things that carries over from state to state. Texas may not allow gay marriage, so a gay couple couldn't get married there, but if a gay couple moves to Texas with a valid marriage from another state, they're entitled to the same rights as any other married couple in Texas. Whereas, since Texas doesn't have "civil unions," having a civil union from California wouldn't give this gay couple any rights in Texas.

If gay couples need to first move to Massachusettes before they can get married, and thus gain marriage rights elsewhere in the nation, then your argument that it is "just a term" is gone. Having to move across the nation to secure a marriage is extremely different from a heterosexual couple just having to go to their local Justice of the Peace.

 

How sure are you of this? It would create a logistical nightmare I would imagine from state to state.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

Quite. The Constitution mandates that states give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Marriage licenses are part of the act, records and judicial proceedings of each state.

 

the wiki says "some states", not all. so its not universal. if gay marriage is banned in a state, i fail to see how they can recognize it still.

 

That's referring to civil unions. All states don't have civil unions, so civil unions don't have legal standing in all states. Marriages do.

 

Well, they'll just have to use California's definition of civil unions. There's no difference since they'll have to recognize the "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, even if it doesn't exist in their state.