Thread: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

Originally Posted by ChuckBerry

I guess everybody was so busy looking for the Quick Rant Reply button that they missed this little detail.



So SS couples get the same legal framework and protections that OS couples get. So what's the problem? Unless it's not really legal protections proponents of SSM were after in the first place...

So then why try and change it?

Originally Posted by Jredbaron96

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Segregation is not at issue here. Will homosexuals have civil unions in separate homosexual only courthouses? Hell, they can even use the same form from NH, just check off one box for civil union and one for marriage. Any church that wishes to marry them can marry both SS couples and opposite sex couples, they would not be required by government to have two separate places for marriage.

Go fish.

Originally Posted by soccerboy22

So then why try and change it?

That's my question.

Originally Posted by ChuckBerry

Segregation is not at issue here. Will homosexuals have civil unions in separate homosexual only courthouses? Hell, they can even use the same form from NH, just check off one box for civil union and one for marriage. Any church that wishes to marry them can marry both SS couples and opposite sex couples, they would not be required by government to have two separate places for marriage.

Go fish.

Segregation isn't limited to objects and buildings. You're segregating a right. And what the hell is so important about not calling it marriage. If you're gonna give it the exact same entitlements and benefits, then just call it marriage. Enough with the appeal to tradition. It's getting old.

And if were gonna play a card game, it's gonna be Texas Hold 'Em.

Originally Posted by Jredbaron96

Segregation isn't limited to objects and buildings. You're segregating a right.

...and if they can exercise that right anywhere anyplace anytime they want to...then what, exactly is the issue?

And what the hell is so important about not calling it marriage.

...and what the hell is so important about calling it marriage, since marriage, up to this point, did not include SS couples? Now we get to the heart of the matter. It never was about equal treatment, it was about co-opting the word. Thanks for showing all your cards.

And if were gonna play a card game, it's gonna be Texas Hold 'Em.

Since you advocate SSM, I figured you would want to play Gay Gordons

Enough with the appeal to tradition. It's getting old.

Well duh.

Originally Posted by ChuckBerry

That's my question.

That's our question. Why if it's only a name fight so hard against it? You all just look like children when you try to deny SSM.

[QUOTE=ChuckBerry;1060316178]

what the hell is so important about calling it marriage, since marriage, up to this point, did not include SS couples? Now we get to the heart of the matter. It never was about equal treatment, it was about co-opting the word. Thanks for showing all your cards.

Nice assumption there buddy.
If a gay couple wants to say "We're married", then why the hell can't they?

Since you advocate SSM, I figured you would want to play Gay Gordons

I only play that on Sundays.

Originally Posted by Jredbaron96

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Yeah that.

Originally Posted by Your Star

That's our question. Why if it's only a name fight so hard against it? You all just look like children when you try to deny SSM.

So why, if it's only a name fight, isn't the rights and protections of civil unions more important? If a compromise is reached where one side gets the rights and protections they claim they want and the other side gets to keep the name...why is that not good enough? I've already disproven that segregation is not the issue.

Originally Posted by Jredbaron96

If a gay couple wants to say "We're married", then why the hell can't they?

They can say it all they want.