Voter Registration at Seattle's Pride Festival
Breier W. Scheetz
wrote:
> BWS> == Breier W Scheetz <bre...@halcyon.com>
>
> BWS> I don't believe homosexual marriages are moral or acceptable. I
> BWS> don't wish to sanction them, and the public agrees.
>
> The ability to visit the person you love most in the hospital. Another
> "special right" according to Breier.
Did I say that? If you could kindly find it in my post, I'd be happy to
apalogize. Regardless, initiative 608 has nothing scenes that you
describe. It merely states that homosexuals can not be given special
protection under the law. Nothing is preventing the legislature or the
people from making a law guaranteing hospital access to loved ones, but
that's a seperate issue altogether. That red herring nonwithstanding,
these initiatives are about equal rights for all. When people are given
minority status based on an action, it gives them special rights,
additional leverage to sue based on discrimination for that feature. Now
tell me, how can I discriminate against someone based on something I don't
know, and can't see apparently? Most gays look like anyone else, and you
won't know they're gay unless they bring it out themselves.
--
"Nothing except a battle lost Breier Scheetz
is half as melancholy bre...@halcyon.com
as a battle won."-Wellington Seattle, Washington USA
PGP Public Key: Finger bre...@halcyon.com
Christopher Davis
BWS> I don't believe homosexual marriages are moral or acceptable. I
BWS> don't wish to sanction them, and the public agrees.
ckd> The ability to visit the person you love most in the hospital.
ckd> Another "special right" according to Breier.
BWS> Did I say that? If you could kindly find it in my post, I'd be
BWS> happy to apalogize.
Many, if not most, hospitals have some restrictions on when (or if)
visitors can see patients. Usually, these restrictions are less
restrictive in the case of immediate family members and/or spouses, since
they are usually considered "next of kin".
Since you oppose allowing homosexuals to declare a legally binding
monogamous relationship, you clearly oppose allowing them the "special"
rights that a marriage license brings.
The "married filing jointly" box on the 1040: another "special right"
according to Breier. (Even if sometimes it costs people more.)
(I might also point out the hypocritical nature of arguing that
homosexuals aren't monogamous "enough", while simultaneously arguing that
they have no right to formalize the monogamous relationships they can and
do, in fact, form.)
--
Christopher Davis * <c...@kei.com> * (was <c...@eff.org>) * MIME * PGP * [CKD1]
"It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full disk of GIFs, half a meg of
hypertext, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Click it."
- Looking for: _The Big U_, by Neal Stephenson (out of print) -