Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#27 Feb 21 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

Add in the "second class citizen" thing and you have a sizable problem.


How could you say that. Didn't you know 'separate but equal' is an eloquent solution that has been proven to stand the test of time? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 21st 2012 8:47am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Feb 21 2012 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
SillyXSara wrote:
Jonwin wrote:
It would be lovely if Jose was a plumber.
Probably his pool boy.
Cabana Cabin boy.
Screenshot
____________________________
Banh
#29 Feb 21 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The only issue here is that Christie wants to pander to his homophobic GOP base and yet not ball up and admit it so he's kicking the can down the road with talk of a future referendum on the topic. If the population at large votes for it, he can say "Hey, they did it and not me" since he's not signing legislation. He's a sniveling coward shrewd politician, nothing more.

FTFY
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#30 Feb 21 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Well, those terms are really interchangeable, now aren't they?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#31 Feb 21 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question here (and I'll admit to knowing very little about the NJ civil union legal status) is if the finding that civil unions were failing to provide the same rights and benefits as marriage was because the actual state law treats them differently, or if individuals and groups within the state are. If the former, then there's certainly a case to be made. But if the latter, then Christie's statement makes complete sense. He's saying that the solution to the problem lies not in changing the requirements for marriage, but in enforcing the existing law. If people/hospitals/businesses/whatever are treating civil unions differently, then that's a "violation of a citizen's rights (and) should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied"


From what I understand of NJ Civil Union law, though, it's pretty much an issue of not being equal under the law.

Wikipedia wrote:
The New Jersey Legislature enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, P.L.2003, c. 246, on January 12, 2004, which came into effect on July 10, 2004. The law made domestic partnerships available to all same-*** couples, as well as to different-*** couples aged 62 and older. The domestic partnership statute provides "limited healthcare, inheritance, property rights and other rights and obligations" but "[does] not approach the broad array of rights and obligations afforded to married couples."[4] For example, as Lambda Legal states, the law "required health and pension benefits [only] for state employees—it was voluntary for other employers—and did not require family leave to care for an ill partner."


So it's not that they are being discriminated against - they literally are not granted the same rights as a marriage, which is pretty wrong in my book.


Except that you quoted from the section about the NJ Domestic Partnership law, which was replaced in 2006 by its civil union law (which is what we're actually discussing here). The relevant portion from the same Wiki page:

Wikipedia wrote:
On December 14, 2006, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill providing for civil unions[6] which was signed into law by the Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006. The Civil Union Act came into effect on February 19, 2007.

Same-*** couples who enter into a civil union are provided almost all of the rights granted to married couples under New Jersey state law. However, under the provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, same-*** couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships do not have any right or entitlement to the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.[7]

The law provides[6] for the creation of a Civil Unions Review Commission that will evaluate the law's effectiveness and any problems resulting therefrom, and will report every six months for three years following enactment to assess the impact of the law. The first meeting of the Civil Unions Review Commission took place on June 18, 2007. The Commission elected a chair, Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the current Director of the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, and the Commission plans on meeting monthly as well as conducting periodic public meetings.[8]

According to the new civil union law,[6] when a same-*** couple receives a civil union, their domestic partnership is automatically terminated by the civil union. However, those couples who remain in domestic partnerships and elect to not enter into a civil union will be allowed to remain as domestic partners.


As I stated earlier, the state itself is only responsible for rights and benefits it grants. So DOMA does not represent a problem with the civil union law itself since those are not things that the state is providing in the first place. At the state level the two statuses are equal under the law. Now if you want to make this an issue about federal recognition of marriage, that's a whole different issue. But that kinda doesn't have anything to do with Christie, or his statement.



OH. And just in case anyone's thinking of using my own re-use of the same terms used by others as agreement, let me say for the record that we're still really talking about benefits, not rights. Just want to make that clear right now. Gaining access to your partners pension is a benefit, not a right.

Edited, Feb 21st 2012 5:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Feb 22 2012 at 2:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
I don't know why it's taken me this long, but I've finally added Gbaji to my ignore list. That makes 2 now.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#33 Feb 22 2012 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
OH. And just in case anyone's thinking of using my own re-use of the same terms used by others as agreement, let me say for the record that we're still really talking about benefits, not rights. Just want to make that clear right now. Gaining access to your partners pension is a benefit, not a right.
I'd say that having access to the same benefits as any hetero married couple is a right.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#34 Feb 22 2012 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
I don't know why it's taken me this long, but I've finally added Gbaji to my ignore list. That makes 2 now.
I don't even have a problem not reading his posts without the ignore feature, I just use it so I only have to scroll for 25% of the time to get to the bottom of a page.
____________________________
Banh
#35 Feb 22 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,730 posts
Just using the End key makes the lengths he goes to delude himself pretty irrelevant.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Feb 22 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Governor Christie is such a fat slug that the weight loss associated with HIV would actually prolong his life.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#37 Feb 22 2012 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,730 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38Almalieque, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It seems to be working quite fine with women and men bathrooms, living quarters, changing rooms, showers, etc..
#39 Feb 22 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

Add in the "second class citizen" thing and you have a sizable problem.


How could you say that. Didn't you know 'separate but equal' is an eloquent solution that has been proven to stand the test of time? Smiley: rolleyes


Edited, Feb 21st 2012 8:47am by someproteinguy


It seems to be working quite fine with women and men bathrooms, living quarters, changing rooms, showers, etc..

For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal. If it were equal, I'm sure we would still be heavily segregated still.


Have you seen some of those things they pass off as Women's restrooms?

Couches, drinking fountains, there's actually soap in the dispensers and toilet liners in the stalls. Seriously, we're getting the short end of the stick here.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#40Almalieque, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, but the argument that the overall concept of "separate but equal" doesn't work is usually misleading. Just because it's called "separate but equal" doesn't necessarily mean it represents it.
#41 Feb 22 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal.
idiggory wrote:
To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

mmhmm...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Feb 22 2012 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


Have you seen some of those things they pass off as Women's restrooms?

Couches, drinking fountains, there's actually soap in the dispensers and toilet liners in the stalls. Seriously, we're getting the short end of the stick here.


Yes, but the argument that the overall concept of "separate but equal" doesn't work is usually misleading. Just because it's called "separate but equal" doesn't necessarily mean it represents it.


So I should rephrase as "separate but equal: not always working as intended" or something like that?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Feb 22 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal. If it were equal, I'm sure we would still be heavily segregated still.


Are you saying that if the two educational facilities had been identical, Brown vs Board of Education would have ruled differently?
#44 Feb 22 2012 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Screenshot
I have almost that complete card set in a box somewhere. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#45 Feb 22 2012 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
OH. And just in case anyone's thinking of using my own re-use of the same terms used by others as agreement, let me say for the record that we're still really talking about benefits, not rights. Just want to make that clear right now. Gaining access to your partners pension is a benefit, not a right.
I'd say that having access to the same benefits as any hetero married couple is a right.


Why? What definition of "rights" allows you to make this statement?

I'll give you a hint: You're half right, but half wrong. The loss of rights occurs to everyone when they are required to pay for those benefits. The receiving of benefits is not a right. What is going on is that the society chooses to allow their rights to be infringed in order to provide benefits to a group of people. Those people do *not* have a right to those benefits. The rest of us choose to give them those benefits. If the purpose for which we made that choice is being served by the application of said benefits, then the infringement is acceptable. If it is not, then it is not.

We can debate whether it's an acceptable infringement of our rights to provide benefits to just heterosexual couples who marry, or to expand that to include *** couples. But that's a separate discussion, and it requires that we first realize that no one has a "right" to receive those benefits. If those benefits are a right, then isn't *everyone* being denied them having their rights infringed? Follow that line of reasoning and you should come to the conclusion that benefits are not rights and no one has a right to receive benefits. To believe otherwise leads quickly to absurd outcomes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Feb 22 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Dozer wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal. If it were equal, I'm sure we would still be heavily segregated still.


Are you saying that if the two educational facilities had been identical, Brown vs Board of Education would have ruled differently?


If the two educational facilities had been identical, the case would have never come up. The case over turned Plessy vs Ferguson, in which the court specifically stated that segregation was permissible as long as the results were equal. It was exactly because the results were demonstrably not equal that the Brown case came to light in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Feb 22 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
ITT: Gbaji doesn't believe homosexual couples should be allowed visiting rights when one of them is seriously injured in hospital.


Also, if the whole "tax benefit" thing is such a problem, take it away from hetero couples, too. I never see you kick up a stink about that. Oh and corporations. Especially those, because they're people too, right? You do the exact opposite there.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 6:47pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#48 Feb 22 2012 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Huh, it's almost like they didn't even make it clear in Brown v Board of Education that it was impossible for segregated facilities to provide equality.

Quote:
To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [******] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.


The case was never about funding, quality of teachers, or any of that. It was about the fact that the government was stigmatizing one group of people in favor of another.

It was a ruling that specifically stated that separate but equal was a fundamentally paradoxical theory that was incompatible with democracy, freedom, and equality.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#49 Feb 22 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,730 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Also, if the whole "tax benefit" thing is such a problem, take it away from hetero couples, too.
It's a pretty nifty loophole. You can say we shouldn't allow it because it's a loss of rights to people who don't want it but still have to pay for it. At the same time, if you suggest removing it all together it's a loss of rights to the people that already benefit from it and we just can't do that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Feb 22 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll invite everyone to read one of the 10,000 other SSM threads to see why Gbaji is a 'tard and save myself the hassle of participating in this one. I assume he'll be using the same faulty logic, history fails, strawman arguments and "It's just obvious!" tactics he has in all of those.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Feb 22 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the two educational facilities had been identical, the case would have never come up. The case over turned Plessy vs Ferguson, in which the court specifically stated that segregation was permissible as long as the results were equal. It was exactly because the results were demonstrably not equal that the Brown case came to light in the first place.


Ah, geez, now I see what he is saying. You guys are (he is) talking about it "didn't work" by referring to the catalyst of the lawsuit, not the actual outcome of it which halted 'separate but equal'. You are (he is) referring to one domino back in the chain of events. It is hard to read that statement and not get thrown off because the court's ruling is that by being separate they are inherently unequal which is counter to his "not because it was separate", but I see he isn't really referring to the court outcome as much as the catalyst of it.

I really hope, for humanity's sake, that even if they had been equal, someone would have come up with the same notion Brown did and litigated. And someone in the court system would have been wise enough to hear it.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 86 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (86)