Today I take on perhaps my most right-wing fundamentalist guest yet: Bruce Hawkins, a "highly skilled political strategist" for the three most Radical Right-Wing candidates ever to run for President: Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Mike Huckabee.
I encourage everyone to call in and join in the debate.
Please let my guest know that substantial parts of America still believe that equal rights for all should prevail over his vision of a Taliban-like theocracy where the Government dictates religion and marriage partners for all.
Let each church, religious sect, decide for in the eyes of their God.
The state should provide the civil unions.
Civil unions can work for those non believers as well that need not a religious annointment. Or for those that a religion will not provide ceremony of other religious people mixing their religions.
Posted by: Robt at May 23, 2008 3:23 AMSeems like a certain religious sect in Texas isn't being allowed its freedom in determining the parameters of marriage and breeding
...with liberty and justice to some--the ones we deem too radical...we'll persecute...
Posted by: Federal Class Action Suit at May 23, 2008 9:51 AMPlease list the Marriage Rights you have identified.
Also, I've heard claims that these are NOT rights but privileges and therefore not eligible for the Equal Treatment clause.
Apparently Samuel Alito made this claim in some ruling or other breif in the recent past.
Tosh--let's call these rights--freedom of religion--one of the cornerstones of our so-called democracy
Posted by: Ken Stitushun at May 27, 2008 10:23 AMFederal List of 1,049 Marriage Rights
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
States generally have MORE marriage rights, approximately 2000 per state. Here's a summary of California's:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-ca.html
There may be better lists you can find on line.
There is no legal distinction between "rights" and "privileges" under the 14th Amendment which guarantees "the equal protection of the laws"
I'd have no problem with your idea, Robert, if most heterosexual couples agreed that the state would not marry them and would join in state civil unions. But most couples -- straight as well as gay -- want a STATE "marriage", whether or not they get a religious one.
So if the state wants to get out of the marrying business entirely, I'm fine with that, but once a state offers any benefit (call it "marriage" or "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or "Fred" (I made that one up)), it HAS to provide the benefits equally to all.
Posted by: Mark Levine at May 29, 2008 12:04 PMWhen marriage becomes less a business proposition--perhaps it will become more of a divine union for all sexes, mixes, and breeds
Posted by: Friar Nip-and-tuck at May 30, 2008 10:05 AM