Complete video at: fora.tv San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart explains why many gay rights advocates continue to press for full marriage status, rather than settling for “civil union” compromises. —– Proposition 8 would change the California State Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. In this emotion-laden issue, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage are grappling with whether amending the constitution to strip rights from some Californians is wise policy. What is the impact on families and society as a whole? – The Commonwealth Club of California Therese M. Stewart is the Chief Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. She has argued the case for same sex marriage rights before the California Supreme Court.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
You cannot argue something is a right if it is not good for the body.Penetration of the anus causes tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues and can damage the sphincter muscles causing incontinence and anal prolapse.There is also a high concentration of disease causing organisms in the anus and the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself, exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases.Not wanting people to engage in acts that unnatural & unhealthy is compassionate
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”
Isaac Newton
how about “we are uniting”? It sounds equally good after you are used to it.
actually, i dont think many people have a problem with people under civil unions having identical rights to married people. This is what happened in England, and the world did not collapse. I think it’s the terminology that is more important to homosexuals than federal rights. They want to change a tradition so that they can be included in it.
Gay people are fighting for the LEGAL right to be married. Most gay people don’t want to go to a church that hates them for being who they are and say, “hey, you need to marry me.” Its the legal rights. If certain churches don’t want to marry gay people for religious beliefs, then that’s their choice. America needs to understand that difference between church and state. There are so many FEDERAL rights a couple gets with marriage that civil unions cannot recieve.
Don’t get me wrong, I think gays should be allowed to get married, it’s unconstitutional to deny them of this, but anyway, you should know by now my problem is more idealistic than anything else. But just to say it again, I’m all for gay marriage under the current laws, it’s just my stupid libertarian way of thinking that makes me disagree with the current laws. That being said, I have nothing more to say, goodbye.
psh, duh! I know you do not understand, I’m just saying that; it may not be important to you, but it is important to other people(who are for gay marriage, for example). As long as you understand not everyone share your views on marriage and you keep an open mind, we won’t have an issue.
It does sound a lot better than saying “I’m having a civil union with my significant other”, I’ll admit that. But, I don’t see the significance of marriage over two people just living with each other other than saying wife instead of girlfriend.
We grew up in a time when you say “I’m. Getting. Married!” it is celebrated (unless you’re getting married because of teen pregnancy). So it is obvious why people would rather say “I’m getting married” instead of “I’m having a civil union with my significant other.”
…..continued
a hundred or so years ago, I’m not exactly sure when the government starting issuing licenses. So, without the government being involved, I don’t know why any non-religious person should get “married” simply because I think that that is a religious institution and it should remain that way. For that reason alone, I don’t see marriage as being essential for two non-religious people who love each other. I think that they should just sign legal papers for things such as kids etc.
I don’t think that would lead to stereotypes at all. Anyways, to sum up what I meant, or think, with the current system. All civil unions should be marriages because marriage is part governmental so they should protect equal rights. So for this reason, I am against civil unions because it is creating a “separate but equal” institution which I don’t think is constitutional; but, I am against the government being apart of this anyway so therefore I think it should return to the way it was……
It is like saying “I will not say ‘God bless America’ because I do not believe in God.” And marriage does not necessarily have to be religious. Just because marriage started in religion does not mean they have copyright ownership. Like everything else, it changed over time. I think all civil unions should be marriages because America would then be chaotic. If some people get married while others get civil unions, this would lead to stereotypes equally as troubling as racism and homophobia
I think that marriage is a religious institution that should only involve the religion and no marriage or union should be entitled to a tax break. So, in my opinion, churches marry who they want, civil unions marry who the church won’t, which should include atheists, which I am, and none of it should involve the gov. But then again, I see marriage or civil unions as being merely symbolic and I don’t understand, apart from legal reasons, why nonreligious people should get married anyway.
Inded it’s something that’s not set in stone in my head but I can say that I will be much more mindful and contemplative of this issue in the comming days.
Nice interchange. Adios.
i applaud you for respecting both the church and state but in my opinion, in the topic of gay marriage, they are not entitled to a defense. they are nitpicking what is against, not their religion, but abviously their own personal values and using their religion as an excuse. atheist can get married also and don’t believe they are “recognized as a union under god”.
i don’t think you understand what i’m trying to argue. christians think premarital sex and pregnancy is wrong, according to their bible a lot of things is against God yet they don’t protest or deny THOSE people their rights to marry.
It’s simple, if you want to be married under God (Assuming Christian) you have to go by the Christian rules. I do not see what’s so hard about that. Even though I am an atheist I do not believe we should be able to get “married” because it isn’t recognized as a union under God. That’s what we have civil unions for. You cannot force a pastor who believes it’s sinful and ultimately wrong to be gay to unionize them under his version of God. It’s ludicrous.
this debate is no longer about the church because everything else that corrupt the sanctity of marriage the church has tolerated up until gays. but it is not the church who is against gay marriage, its the individuals now. why should gays be any less tolerated than premarital sex or pregnancy, or athiest or muslim…the list goes on and on and yet they think gays are too immoral to get married compared to those things from the perspective of the “church”.
…..like Therese Stewart, marriage cannot be denied regardless of religion, race and whether or not they had premarital sex, etc. a lots of those things are originally against the bible, but those christians[protestants, catholics etc.] allowed them because they personally do not ahve a problem with it, even though the bible dub them as also corrupting the sanctity of marriage. then when the issue of GAY marriage comes, the suddenly act defensively.
sooo…..you believe that the government has no right/power to intervene in the rights of the individual regarless of religion and personal lifestyle, but the church can do that. and further more, the government has no say to stop the church from doing what even the government can not do. and if civil union is the same as marriage, then why cannot the church stop atheist from getting married, yet get to nitpick? the church are also “fighting for a word, it’s just a word.”
*Sigh*,not respectfully as in the verb “to respect”:but rather meant in a way to suggest vise-versa. Church should be protected from the Government and the Government should be protected from the Church.
i don’t understand. when you say “one is protected from the other, respectively” are you saying the church and state should come to a compromise and the civil union is the answer “respectively”, because in that case, then gays are not exactly respected in this compromise of yours as much as you would think
Excuse me; I should have included “Seperation” in front of “Church and State.” That’s very important.
And I’m not so ignorant to bull-headedly stand by this belief. If you say something that I find reasonable I would be happy to “switch sides.” But I’m not homophobic, on the contrary I have a lot of gay friends. I just believe that Church and State should work both ways so that one is protected from the other, respectively.
I really do not care about the sanctity of marriage frankly; I am not a Christian or even religious for that matter. And no, my position isn’t just fighting for the word because if this would be passed then all churches would be forced to conduct marriages regardless of their own beliefs and I find that wrong. And because atheists do not have civil unions is because of the simple fact that you do not have to announce your atheism to the pastor. Kind of in-cognito.