Lesbian Couple

Old Apr 30th 2009, 3:57 am
  #31  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
scrubbedexpat099 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Lesbian Couple

1 post by the OP

29 by everybody else, but hardly surprising.

Wonder what the average thread posts is where the subject line includes Lesbian?
scrubbedexpat099 is offline  
Old Apr 30th 2009, 1:06 pm
  #32  
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,605
chartreuse is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Lesbian Couple

Originally Posted by fatbrit
Sometimes compromise is the best way to get forward even if the other side won't play the same game. The only important thing to move America forward is that homosexual couples get exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples. A small compromise by calling it something different is not the end of the world.
On a practical level, I tend to agree with Boiler and FB. ISTR that this was also John McCain's approach, during last year's campaign and I was cautiously optimistic for a time.

That said, the libertarian in me shares JCraigFong's and FB's SWMBO's view that it's all none of the government's damn business in the first place. Sadly, given the current appetite for ever bigger government (regardless of party affiliation), I can't see that happening any time soon.

FWIW, our extended family encompasses everything from an Irish Church wedding to a Vegas casino, with a Civil Partnership and (our own) King County Courthouse lumped together, somewhere in the middle...
chartreuse is offline  
Old Apr 30th 2009, 8:34 pm
  #33  
US immigration lawyer.
 
JCraigFong's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles & Palm Springs, California
Posts: 695
JCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond reputeJCraigFong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Lesbian Couple

Originally Posted by chartreuse
The libertarian in me shares JCraigFong's and FB's SWMBO's view that it's all none of the government's damn business in the first place. Sadly, given the current appetite for ever bigger government (regardless of party affiliation), I can't see that happening any time soon.
Chartreuse: It's nice to know there are libertarians out there who see the logic impelling this issue. Though not strictly a libertarian myself, I can often live (politically) comfortably next door to a libertarian. Of course, there are no roses without thorns, and I think I would take small exception to your feeling about big government impeding this issue.

Regardless of party in power, it is not my impression that big or small government is the obstruction here. Alas, the religious obstacle is considerable. This reflects fatbrit's observation that though England has an official state religion, and many European nations have strong Catholic roots, the ecclesiastic connection between state and policy is now relatively weak in many nations. Alas, that is far from the truth in the USA.

As much of a partisan as I am, I realize that most run-of-the-mill republicans are not talibanesque demons. However, religious influence on law and policy in the nation is significant. It is from the religious quarter, primarily, that the opposition to same-sex marriage comes.

To bring this back to the immigration question: I find it sad that for all the talk in many circles about family values and the preservation of the family, same-sex families -- many of which have children, too! -- end up with no protection and no "preservation," because of the Defense of Marriage Act. The vehemence of some on same-sex marriage would lead an uninformed observer to think we were talking about the Defence of the Realm!

--J Craig Fong
JCraigFong is offline  
Old May 1st 2009, 2:37 am
  #34  
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,605
chartreuse is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Lesbian Couple

Originally Posted by JCraigFong
Chartreuse: It's nice to know there are libertarians out there who see the logic impelling this issue. Though not strictly a libertarian myself, I can often live (politically) comfortably next door to a libertarian. Of course, there are no roses without thorns, and I think I would take small exception to your feeling about big government impeding this issue.
Thanks. I don't think we're too far apart here and suspect that your small exception re big govt may owe more to a terminological disconnect between us than a logical one. Please allow me to work through your reasoning, as a skeleton for amplifying my views.

Regardless of party in power, it is not my impression that big or small government is the obstruction here.
You are entirely correct. It is government, period, that has legislated the obstruction. My adjectives were irrelevant, except insofar as they indicated my desire to experience less of a bad thing.

Alas, the religious obstacle is considerable. This reflects fatbrit's observation that though England has an official state religion, and many European nations have strong Catholic roots, the ecclesiastic connection between state and policy is now relatively weak in many nations. Alas, that is far from the truth in the USA.
I agree that there is religious influence upon legislation in the USA. I also agree that said influence mainly comes from certain, rather extreme, flavours of Christianity. It's also true that the same is lacking in the UK, although other, more vocal faiths do appear to be punching above their weight when it comes to making law there - Sharia courts, for example.

This leads me to make two observations: First that religion, like much else in the USA, appears to be rather hyper, from my CoE "We like our religion to be grey and nondescript" perspective. Second that, in that respect, certain varieties of US Christianity might appear to have more in common with radical Islam than with the Established Church.

As much of a partisan as I am, I realize that most run-of-the-mill republicans are not talibanesque demons.
Thank you, once again. I note that our analogies appear to be converging.

However, religious influence on law and policy in the nation is significant. It is from the religious quarter, primarily, that the opposition to same-sex marriage comes.
Precisely. A group of people, who bear ill-will towards other people are using the power of the state to do them harm, backed up by the threat of violence. There are many terms for this type of behaviour - thuggery, mob-rule, democracy or gangsterism, to list just four. History has taught us that such hatreds will always be with us, when one goes out of fashion another is sure to rear its head.

Of course, people are entitled to hold their views, however repugnant you or I may find them. Mostly, they're harmless and even if acted upon are self-correcting - the man (in private business) who has a prejudiced hiring policy will eventually go bust at the hands of his competitors, who employ all the brilliant people he rejected. It only becomes a problem when the government gets involved and choice is replaced by coercion. That's why I say that government is the problem - without it, the fanatics would just be random bigots, pissing in the wind.

To bring this back to the immigration question: I find it sad that for all the talk in many circles about family values and the preservation of the family, same-sex families -- many of which have children, too! -- end up with no protection and no "preservation," because of the Defense of Marriage Act. The vehemence of some on same-sex marriage would lead an uninformed observer to think we were talking about the Defence of the Realm!
No argument there, just an observation that hypocrisy is the stock in trade of politicians. Incidentally, on a post-immigration matter (and grinding a new axe of mine, sorry) are you aware of any legal basis for the Texas DPS to have a policy of only hiring US Citizens, even for jobs as basic as cutting the lawn?

Last edited by chartreuse; May 1st 2009 at 2:41 am. Reason: added the self-correcting bit, for clarity.
chartreuse is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.