Comments on: How Equal Rights for Domestic Partnerships Will Save Traditional Marriage

By: wgmyler

wgmyler — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:59:57 +0000

Haha. I don’t know…maybe it’s the way I look…the way I talk…maybe my body language? Ask my girlfriend. You know what….maybe everyone who passionately supports traditional family values are secretly gay. haha…yeah, that’s probably it.

Scott, you’re ad hominem attacks only illustrate your lack for a logical & rational response to the points I make….leaving you with nothing but a pathetic (not to mention rude) attempt to distract from the real arguments. Chill bro…seriously.

By: tydurden923

tydurden923 — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:25:22 +0000

Garrett,

Nearly every single person I sent this video to (without any comment from myself) independently told me that they’re convinced that you’re a latent homosexual. Why is that?

By: pkiverson

pkiverson — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:38:27 +0000

Ok, I wrote that paragraph in haste. Clearly, calling black people black and gay people gay is not discrimination.

But when you create a set of rights for one person and name it one thing and another set of rights for different people and name it differently, that can create inequality.

Sending you a message to describe what I mean in more detail.

By: wgmyler

wgmyler — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:31:08 +0000

Besides, if a “2nd rate” citizen exists under the law, it’s the result of racists judges like Sonia Sotomayor & affirmative action.

A firefighter has a harder time getting hired & promoted because he was born a white male. I’m sure since you’re all about equality you’re just as passionately fighting against that injustice right?

Plus, how dare firefighters be called something different than cops. Gangs nationwide view & treat cops differently. Equality demands they both be called firefighters!

By: wgmyler

wgmyler — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:18:13 +0000

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

In CA & WA gays have “equal protection” under the law. “Naming things differently creates an inherent inequality”? Take a good hard objective look at what you just said. I suppose we should all start calling blacks “white” & women “men” because otherwise it creates a “second class” citizen & people are prone to think they’re different. Since when was being “different” so horrible? Besides, regardless of the law, you’ll never be able to control perception.

By: pkiverson

pkiverson — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:58:58 +0000

The people do not, and should not, have a right to discriminate against a group of people who are protected under the equal protection clause of the constitution. This is one of the reasons we have a constitution in the first place, to protect rights of minorities from the majority.

Naming things differently creates an inherent inequality. It opens the door for people to not only view them differently, but also treat them differently.

By: wgmyler

wgmyler — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:38:58 +0000

I appreciate the thought & research from both sides in this respectful discussion.

“No important governmental objective involved”? I’d say defending democracy is a pretty big governmental objective. It’s simple really. Gays should be treated equally under the law. But as I clearly mention in the video, THE PEOPLE’S desire to distinguish different things with different names is not unconstitutional.

By: pkiverson

pkiverson — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:20:02 +0000

Would actively denying gay couples marriage licenses somehow encourage them to get married to the opposite sex and procreate? No, that’s fairly unlikely. So what is the actual purpose of denying gay couples marriage licenses? The answer is there is no important governmental objective involved, and hence no reason for denial.

By: pkiverson

pkiverson — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:18:15 +0000

Also, it is nowhere near obvious that marriage has much to do with procreation at all. Millions of married couples choose not procreate. Millions of unwed couples can procreate. The act of procreation does not require a marriage. Infertile and elderly couples are allowed to wed. There is no edict in marriage requiring a couple to procreate. Gay couples are equally situated with respect to the benefits marriage grants, that is, we may receive EVERY single benefit given by marriage.

By: pkiverson

pkiverson — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:14:29 +0000

Sigh… just because the supreme court looked at it once and threw it out, doesn’t mean the argument is entirely invalid. The courts in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, Lewis v. Harris, In re Marriage Cases, and Varnum v. Brien all agreed that an equal protection argument IS valid. So clearly there is SOME case to be made.