Quantcast

Anti-Gay Marriage Group Backing Civil Union Bill

★~DoctorWhoGuru~★ 2012/03/20 02:02:50

WASHINGTON -- The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is the leading group fighting the legalization of same-sex marriage around the country. It has raised and spent millions, opposing not only marriage equality but also civil unions.

Yet NOM is now backing legislation in New Hampshire that would repeal same-sex marriage but legalize civil unions, signaling a shift in its tactics as more states move toward recognizing marriage equality.

The New Hampshire House is expected to vote Wednesday on a bill that would repeal marriage equality and replace it with a civil unions law that was in effect in the state in 2008 and 2009. Same-sex marriage was legalized in the state on Jan. 1, 2010.

State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), the author of the bill, is also pushing for a ballot referendum in November asking voters, "Shall New Hampshire law allow civil unions for same-sex couples and define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?"


Read More: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/538345/thumbs/r-BRIAN-BROWN-large57...
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Psyblade 2012/04/02 05:02:07
    Psyblade
    +1
    Let me get this straight. NOM has raised and spent millions of dollars just to keep gays from getting married or even having civil unions when that money could be used for something like starving children or cancer research?

    Wow......
  • Bocephus 2012/03/23 21:35:18
  • Joanie 2012/03/20 15:17:25 (edited)
    Joanie
    +1
    Civil unions for gays are like "colored" water fountains for African-Americans back in the 1950s when there were "colored" and "whites only" water fountains. The water tasted the same out of the "colored" water fountain, but the system was discriminatory bull****. It was the majority's way of telling black people that they weren't as good. And civil unions are the conservatives' way of tellling gay people we aren't as good as heterosexual people--we don't deserve the Cadillac (marriage) but only the Volkswagen (civil unions). Of course, we won't settle for this, nor will we stand for this.
  • nothingbutthetruth 2012/03/20 05:57:48
    nothingbutthetruth
    +1
    I think where they should investing their energy, time, and money is, in Congress! Tell Republicans stop sitting on the jobs bill and help get people back to work! How grateful others and myself will be):-
  • sjalan 2012/03/20 04:03:39
    sjalan
    +2
    This shows just how weak the argument which NOM is presenting is. The net result will be a dual recognition of status. Gee Whiz folks, Separate but equal went bye bye in the 1960's with the civil rights laws.

    The California Supreme Court said the same thing. Separate names for the same benefits is not constitutional. The Federal District court said the only reasonable conclusion for prohibiting same sex marriage is because there is direct animus towards the group/minority.

    Animus noun
    1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
    2. purpose; intention; animating spirit.
    3. (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the masculine principle, especially as present in women ( contrasted with anima).

    At the 9th Circuit court of Appeals the three judge panel agreed!!!!

    In Romer v Evans (Colorado Amendment 2) Justice Kennedy said the same sort of thing



    "The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

    Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people fro...















    This shows just how weak the argument which NOM is presenting is. The net result will be a dual recognition of status. Gee Whiz folks, Separate but equal went bye bye in the 1960's with the civil rights laws.

    The California Supreme Court said the same thing. Separate names for the same benefits is not constitutional. The Federal District court said the only reasonable conclusion for prohibiting same sex marriage is because there is direct animus towards the group/minority.

    Animus noun
    1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
    2. purpose; intention; animating spirit.
    3. (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the masculine principle, especially as present in women ( contrasted with anima).

    At the 9th Circuit court of Appeals the three judge panel agreed!!!!

    In Romer v Evans (Colorado Amendment 2) Justice Kennedy said the same sort of thing



    "The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

    Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights", Kennedy wrote:

    To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

    Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens. Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups that they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory).

    Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:

    Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

    And:

    [Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

    Kennedy did not go into depth in rejecting the claims put forward in support of the law (protecting the rights of landlords to evict gay tenants if they found homosexuality morally offensive, etc.) because he held that the law was so unique as to "confound this normal process of judicial review" and "defies...conventional inquiry." This conclusion was supported by his assertion that "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort." Finding that "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," the Court implied that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a "bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group"."

    When are these anal retentive, obsesive complusive people going to learn? YOU CANNOT VOTE ON BASIC HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS.
    (more)
  • mikey 2012/03/20 02:57:57
    mikey
    +1
    the constitution supports it so all they need to do is get a good lawyer and a constitutional historian and get the case to the supreme court and they can get it legal as american we have to allow people to do the things that allow them to be happy that are with in reason i mean we dont have to agree with it nor support it but give them the right to live however they want its not affecting us as humans they should not be allowed to go in a church and force a pastor to marry them b/c it agianst most preachers doctrine and i cant blame them for not going agiant it but they should be allowed to go before in a court room before a judge and be married hes getting paid off thier tax dollars
  • Chris- Demon of the PHAET 2012/03/20 02:48:14
    Chris- Demon of the PHAET
    +2
    I guess they figure two men or two women getting married is going to happen no matter how much money they spend. Since the marriage of homosexuals will cause the total collapse of society as we know it, civil unions is the lesser of two evils. (A civil union of two men will only natural disasters.)
  • mizzSHADYgirl 2012/03/20 02:08:11
    mizzSHADYgirl
    +1
    Oh boo :p

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/30 18:28:42

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals