Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[ghostrunner]

I thought it was people that were for gay rights that are pushing their views into the legal system.

were women and minorities pushing their views into the legal system?

Sure. Doesn't mean they weren't right in doing so, but they were pushing the rights. That was my only point. It's not the other way around as others have it.

And although I'm not in favor of gay rights or abortion or any other Liberal policy, that wasn't the main point. The Christian right isn't the ones pushing their views into the legal system regarding gay rights. It's clearly the other way around.

I think trying to have a definition of marriage put into state constitutions (where it wasn't previously) counts as trying to push your views into the legal system.

[Popeye_Card]

I thought it was people that were for gay rights that are pushing their views into the legal system.

were women and minorities pushing their views into the legal system?

Sure. Doesn't mean they weren't right in doing so, but they were pushing the rights. That was my only point. It's not the other way around as others have it.

And although I'm not in favor of gay rights or abortion or any other Liberal policy, that wasn't the main point. The Christian right isn't the ones pushing their views into the legal system regarding gay rights. It's clearly the other way around.

I don't think that's 100% accurate. They have passed state constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage, and have pushed for a federal constitutional ammendment. I'd call that pushing their views into the legal system.

[PujolJunkie]

I thought it was people that were for gay rights that are pushing their views into the legal system.

were women and minorities pushing their views into the legal system?

Sure. Doesn't mean they weren't right in doing so, but they were pushing the rights. That was my only point. It's not the other way around as others have it.

And although I'm not in favor of gay rights or abortion or any other Liberal policy, that wasn't the main point. The Christian right isn't the ones pushing their views into the legal system regarding gay rights. It's clearly the other way around.

I don't think that's 100% accurate. They have passed state constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage, and have pushed for a federal constitutional ammendment. I'd call that pushing their views into the legal system.

Absolutely.

[BW23]

Oh, so one side pushes their views but those that didn't want the changes should stand still.

I had something else typed out, but I'll refrain from offending anyone. I've made my views clear before, and it's not like I'm going to change anyone's opinion or vice versa. I actually despise political and religious debates on sports forums, but I get carried up in it from time to time.

Carry on.

[heyzeus]

Moreover, when were gay people ever formally excluded from having the same rights as everyone else?

Today, right now: 1. when they pay taxes and can't take advantage of joint filing breaks and deductions. 2. If their spouse is facing end-of-life medical care decisions but they don't have legal rights to be involved. 3. In most places, if their spouse is a city or state employee and they cannot be covered like any other spouse would.

In the very recent past, until a supreme court decision of just 3 years ago, many states had sodomy laws that outlawed any sexual contact between members of the same sex. I'd say that's excluding someone from the same rights as everyone else, and so did the court.

[Jocephus]

Oh, so one side pushes their views but those that didn't want the changes should stand still.

gay rights really shouldnt be in question from the beginning though.

"all men are created equal"...seriously...does that mean anything?

[TimeForGuinness]

Moreover, when were gay people ever formally excluded from having the same rights as everyone else?

Today, right now: 1. when they pay taxes and can't take advantage of joint filing breaks and deductions. 2. If their spouse is facing end-of-life medical care decisions but they don't have legal rights to be involved. 3. In most places, if their spouse is a city or state employee and they cannot be covered like any other spouse would.

In the very recent past, until a supreme court decision of just 3 years ago, many states had sodomy laws that outlawed any sexual contact between members of the same sex. I'd say that's excluding someone from the same rights as everyone else, and so did the court.

Thanks for the info heyzeus

[Popeye_Card]

Oh, so one side pushes their views but those that didn't want the changes should stand still.

I had something else typed out, but I'll refrain from offending anyone. I've made my views clear before, and it's not like I'm going to change anyone's opinion or vice versa. I actually despise political and religious debates on sports forums, but I get carried up in it from time to time.

Carry on.

I would expect that they'd push back. But you were saying that (for lack of a better term) the "religious right" hasn't been pushing their legal agendas against gays.

IMO, you can be anti-homosexual based on your religious views. That's fine. You can be personally opposed to it. But I don't think it's constitutional to be legally opposed to them, when the opposition is based on religious grounds. If you can prove that there's a danger to society in letting homosexuals have legal rights, then by all means let's have laws against it. But I don't think there's any proof to that pudding. Could there be marriages of convenience for tax-sheltering, etc.? Sure. But it's not like there aren't heterosexual marriages of convenience out there, already taking advantage of whatever systems they can.

[ghostrunner]

Moreover, when were gay people ever formally excluded from having the same rights as everyone else?

Today, right now: 1. when they pay taxes and can't take advantage of joint filing breaks and deductions. 2. If their spouse is facing end-of-life medical care decisions but they don't have legal rights to be involved. 3. In most places, if their spouse is a city or state employee and they cannot be covered like any other spouse would.

In the very recent past, until a supreme court decision of just 3 years ago, many states had sodomy laws that outlawed any sexual contact between members of the same sex. I'd say that's excluding someone from the same rights as everyone else, and so did the court.

That's not really what I meant. I Just meant that homosexuals aren't trying to change the rules. They're just trying to make sure they're followed.

[TimeForGuinness]

Oh, so one side pushes their views but those that didn't want the changes should stand still.

I had something else typed out, but I'll refrain from offending anyone. I've made my views clear before, and it's not like I'm going to change anyone's opinion or vice versa. I actually despise political and religious debates on sports forums, but I get carried up in it from time to time.

Carry on.

I would expect that they'd push back. But you were saying that (for lack of a better term) the "religious right" hasn't been pushing their legal agendas against gays.

IMO, you can be anti-homosexual based on your religious views. That's fine. You can be personally opposed to it. But I don't think it's constitutional to be legally opposed to them, when the opposition is based on religious grounds. If you can prove that there's a danger to society in letting homosexuals have legal rights, then by all means let's have laws against it. But I don't think there's any proof to that pudding. Could there be marriages of convenience for tax-sheltering, etc.? Sure. But it's not like there aren't heterosexual marriages of convenience out there, already taking advantage of whatever systems they can.

++