[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There is no guarantee of rights based on who you love or prefer to have sex with. [/quote]
Do you really think that?[/quote]
Yes. Why is where you put your dick an entitlement of some sort?[/quote]
liberty and the pursuit of happiness or something.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[/quote]
Its not funny from you either.
Wait.
You’re not serious, are you?
Please, really, don’t need me to explain it to you. Be smarter than that. Please?[/quote]
Nobody has ever explained to me why someone should have the right to marry someone of the same sex…Why should that exist?[/quote]
Why shouldnt it be?
I think it is say to save that you have the right to do pretty much anything as long as you do not harm others.
Do we have to beg a government now that they would recognize that right?
I say the civil servants get a tad uppity these days if they think that they have the right to to define their employers relationsships…
[/quote]
why should that exist? So that two people who share a life together can make end of life decisions together for example. For all the reasons that any two people who love each other want to get married.
So that they can legally adopt and fullfill their human need for generativity.
http://www.johnkotre.com/generativity.htm
etc.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Negative, the state cannot decide whether or not to restrict marriage. [/quote]
Yes, it can, and it has for years - it restricts on the basis of age (cant be too young), number of spouses (no polygamy, etc.) and gender (one man, one woman).
You can’t just make stuff up - none of these restrictions have even been “in violation of federal law and the Constitution”. And riddle me this, if the gender restriction isn’t a valid restriction under the Constitution, are the other two?[/quote]
The age restriction relates to the govt’s assumption, as well as society’s, that until people reach a certain age, there are certain decisions that should not be left to them both for their benefit and for society’s. It is not in a child’s best interest, nor is it in society’s for a child to be allowed to drive, for instance.
Regarding polygamy, there is no violation at the expense of the equal protection clause because no one is allowed to have multiple wives. If there was a certain segment of the population that was allowed to and another that was not, the segment that was not would be the victim of unconstitutional action.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it is not a civil right . . . .
it is a state issue only - each state as the arbitrator/issuer of authority to certify a legal marriage has the authority to define what matrimonial requirements do or do not exist (age, gender, mental competence, etc)
Since the state has the authority to define what it considers a marriage - it falls to the citizens of that state to define it via their duly appointed legal representatives - state legislature and/or the mechanisms that state employs for deciding the will of its residents.
Since it is not a civil right, and it is up to the citizens of the respective state to define - what we consider a marriage is of vital importance - a majority can and does define what consitutes a marriage.
It is not a federal issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a civil rights issue - it is a state issue and thus defined by the residents of the state . . . on those grounds Prop 8 should have been upheld and on those grounds the decision to overturn it should be appealed and reinstated . . .
marriage is not a civil right - it is a state-defined legal condition . . . .
[/quote]
It is in no way a state issue only and it most certainly is a civil rights issue. It’s simple: the Constitution grants equal protection under the law to all citizens. If there is a certain segment of society that has access to something, another segment does not and cna be shown to suffer directly as a result of this, then it is unconstitutional in nature.
Marriage carries more legal and financial benefits than a civil union does. A civil union in one state between two gays currently does get recognized in other states. A person who was “civilly unioned” to someone else does not automatically share community property with that person, whereas a married couple does.
It is not up to the states to determine what rights that are provided for under federal law can and cannot be applied in their state. It is not up to the states, for instance, to determine whether or not blacks can sit at the same counter as whites, even if they were to vote that law back into effect.
Tell me something: what should happen if a state were to pass a proposition with an overwhelming majority that stated that blacks cannot marry whites? Is this a state issue? Does this violate the Constitution in a way that you apparently feel Prop 8 does not?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Regarding polygamy, there is no violation at the expense of the equal protection clause because no one is allowed to have multiple wives. [/quote]
That’s like saying there is no violation with regards to homosexuals, because no man’s marriage to another man would be recognized by the state. Therefore, there is no discrimination against homosexual men. And that one is supposedly a weak argument, we’re told.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it is not a civil right . . . .
it is a state issue only - each state as the arbitrator/issuer of authority to certify a legal marriage has the authority to define what matrimonial requirements do or do not exist (age, gender, mental competence, etc)
Since the state has the authority to define what it considers a marriage - it falls to the citizens of that state to define it via their duly appointed legal representatives - state legislature and/or the mechanisms that state employs for deciding the will of its residents.
Since it is not a civil right, and it is up to the citizens of the respective state to define - what we consider a marriage is of vital importance - a majority can and does define what consitutes a marriage.
It is not a federal issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a civil rights issue - it is a state issue and thus defined by the residents of the state . . . on those grounds Prop 8 should have been upheld and on those grounds the decision to overturn it should be appealed and reinstated . . .
marriage is not a civil right - it is a state-defined legal condition . . . .
[/quote]
It is in no way a state issue only and it most certainly is a civil rights issue. It’s simple: the Constitution grants equal protection under the law to all citizens. If there is a certain segment of society that has access to something, another segment does not and cna be shown to suffer directly as a result of this, then it is unconstitutional in nature.
Marriage carries more legal and financial benefits than a civil union does. A civil union in one state between two gays currently does get recognized in other states. A person who was “civilly unioned” to someone else does not automatically share community property with that person, whereas a married couple does.
It is not up to the states to determine what rights that are provided for under federal law can and cannot be applied in their state. It is not up to the states, for instance, to determine whether or not blacks can sit at the same counter as whites, even if they were to vote that law back into effect.
Tell me something: what should happen if a state were to pass a proposition with an overwhelming majority that stated that blacks cannot marry whites? Is this a state issue? Does this violate the Constitution in a way that you apparently feel Prop 8 does not?[/quote]
LMAO - this passes for intellectual thought for you eh? race baiting and redefining terms . . . nice . . .
Where in the constitution did you find equal protection for the “right” to marry?
exact language please . . . Oh, that’s right . . . there is no right to marry in the constitution - thus there can be no protection for a right not existing in the Constitution and since all powers not granted to the federal government through the constitution were reserved to the states or to the people - the federal government has no place or authority in the matter. Ask any constitutional lawyer . . . .
Homosexual men already have equal access to the exact same action that I do - any man can marry any woman that will have him . . . . the state does not define marriage by love, by sexual intercourse or by fidelity or even by descendants - it defines it as a union between a man and a woman - any man and any woman of legal (entering into a contract) age.
If a civil union between a man and man does not give the same economic and legal benefits as a marriage between a man and a woman - fix the civil union law . . . AT THE STATE LEVEL
This remains a state issue not a federal one and it is definitely not a civil rights issue.
Any property, financial or legal issues can all be addressed through existing means without redefining marriage as something other than the recognized union of a man and a woman.
Insurance, annuities, property ownership, hospital visitation, investment accounts, bank accounts, tax filing, etc -every single one of these issues (and more) is and can be addressed through existing processes for the benefit of any gay man who prefers to spend his life with another gay man. It’s a FALSE straw man argument - there is NOTHING that a married couple enjoys that cannot be enjoyed by a gay couple via other arrangements - just as they have figured out how to have intercourse without a vagina, they can figure out how to accomplish everything else without a marriage license . . .
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Any property, financial or legal issues can all be addressed through existing means without redefining marriage as something other than the recognized union of a man and a woman.
Insurance, annuities, property ownership, hospital visitation, investment accounts, bank accounts, tax filing, etc -every single one of these issues (and more) is and can be addressed through existing processes for the benefit of any gay man who prefers to spend his life with another gay man. It’s a FALSE straw man argument - there is NOTHING that a married couple enjoys that cannot be enjoyed by a gay couple via other arrangements - just as they have figured out how to have intercourse without a vagina, they can figure out how to accomplish everything else without a marriage license . . .[/quote]
This is true, and something that I’ve argued for some time when I explain to gay people (on the Internet mostly since I don’t know any gay people) that marriage is not as big a deal as they think.
But the reverse is also true. In terms of civil law (not taking into account any religious or ethical issues which are separate from the civil law), marriage does not provide a whole heck of a lot of rights unless you’re dealing with a divorce or death. I once heard a speech by a libertarian candidate for president who asked, "If you go down and obtain a marriage license from the state, what does that ‘marriage license’ allow you to do that you couldn’t do before?’ The answer: absolutely nothing. Marriage is not a pre-requisite to living together, owning property together, or procreating. And there’s not much legal benefit during a marriage. If one spouse needs to make legal or financial decisions for an incapacitated spouse, that spouse will still need either a power of attorney or a court ordered guardianship. All medical and financial institutions require this. The only real benefit would be employer-provided health insurance where such benefits are limited only to a “spouse.” However, many companies now extend benefits to domestic partners - I know mine does.
So the crux of the question is what is the big deal with civil marriage? Why not extend these somewhat limited legal protections to persons of the same sex or, alternatively, allow for private marriage contracts? I say create a hybrid system. Have state law marriages where the rules are set in place and there for whoever wants them, and limit these to marriages between men and women only - no big deal. Then, have a second option that allow a civil union that is governed by the parties’ own agreement. The civil would be available for same sex partners as well as heterosexual partners.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
You’re right again. What I haven’t been able to figure out is what is the practical distinction between civil marriage and a civil union? I haven’t read a civil union statute, but I would argue that there probably isn’t any real distinction in practical, legal terms. I’ve been arguing for years that all the state gives any married couple is a form of civil union. I think it comes down to word choices. For some reason, “gay marriage” is very offensive to some people but a “gay civil union” is okay.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The age restriction relates to the govt’s assumption, as well as society’s, that until people reach a certain age, there are certain decisions that should not be left to them both for their benefit and for society’s. It is not in a child’s best interest, nor is it in society’s for a child to be allowed to drive, for instance.[/quote]
Uh, yeah, and you could have stopped at “it’s society’s assumption”. You bet it is. And rationally so. But if there is a “right” to marriage, society’s “assumptions” get trumped by a “right” - and you haven’t explained why that wouldn’t be so if marriage is a “right” as you describe it.
Do you have an answer?
Heh, this is surreal - who says you can’t have multiple wives? Why society does, of course, and all its assmuptions. Society also says by and large you can’t have a spouse the same sex as you. And? Same rule applies - there is no difference. What was your point?
You mean like people who are monogomous and people who are not?
And be honest - you don’t have any idea what Equal Protection means under the Constitution, do you? Because that is the only standard a federal judge would apply, none of this “feels like it” stuff you keep asserting.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It is in no way a state issue only and it most certainly is a civil rights issue. It’s simple: the Constitution grants equal protection under the law to all citizens. If there is a certain segment of society that has access to something, another segment does not and cna be shown to suffer directly as a result of this, then it is unconstitutional in nature.[/quote]
I pay a higher tax percentage of my income than do people who make less money than me. I suffer as a result - I take home less of my paycheck as a percentage, I am treated differently. So, a progressive tax rate is “unconstitutional”?
For the love of all that is holy, enough with the race analogies. Race is not and has never been treated in the same equal protection class as sexual orientation (or nearly everything else). Can we please dispense with this horribly false analogy? The folks who resort to it only prove one thing - they have no idea what they are talking about.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[/quote]
Its not funny from you either.
Wait.
You’re not serious, are you?
Please, really, don’t need me to explain it to you. Be smarter than that. Please?[/quote]
I was joking when I posted it - but since you got your panties in a wad over it - let’s wander on down that line of argument . . .
A man can have as many lovers as he choses and 1 wife at a time - applies to all men . . . cannot be any fairer than that - all other issues can be addressed by wills and other legal docs . . .
what you got?[/quote]
All people can only marry a person who is within two inches height difference than them.
The law applies to everyone equally so it must be fair, yeah?
[quote]pat wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about this is that the people of California voted for Prop. 8. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, it should bother you that judges can over turn the will of the people. This was put to a fair and square democratic vote and it lost. That fact should be considered above all…[/quote]
Is this a matter that should be left to a vote?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about this is that the people of California voted for Prop. 8. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, it should bother you that judges can over turn the will of the people. This was put to a fair and square democratic vote and it lost. That fact should be considered above all…[/quote]
Is this a matter that should be left to a vote? [/quote]
As of right now, as it is defined as a state issue? Yes. If you wish to seperate State and marriage then it wouldn’t matter because the state would have no say.
Under our constitution this is a states issue and must be voted on by the state’s people.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.[/quote]
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
You are okay with civil union, just not marriage?
In history there have been norms that have changed because society has changed. Societal mores do change. Why can’t this one change?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.[/quote]
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
You are okay with civil union, just not marriage?
In history there have been norms that have changed because society has changed. Societal mores do change. Why can’t this one change?
[/quote]
Honestly, I don’t care what it’s called. I just want to know that some day, when I find the man that I’m supposed to be with, that we’d be able to have the exact same benefits as all of my straight married friends and not be treated like second class citizens over the way we were born (notice how I didn’t say “choice” because it wasn’t)
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.[/quote]
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
You are okay with civil union, just not marriage?
In history there have been norms that have changed because society has changed. Societal mores do change. Why can’t this one change?
[/quote]
But the norms DIDN’T change, thus the vote FOR prop 8. One judge (who happens to be openly gay with a long-term partner, and therefore should have recused himself) can’t decide what society’s norms are. The people of CA decided.
Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh and civil unions can be given reciprocity just as marriages are. You do realized that marriages do not technically exist outside of the state in which they were licensed, right? States grant reciprocal recognition of marriages established in other states based on the same recognition for their own. So the exact same arrangement for civil unions is available (and generally granted reciprocity) across the country.[/quote]
not really true. There are some benefits only available to married couples such as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship.
Also some inheritance issues are assumed via marriage. Same thing with Death Benefits, I can’t will someone my social security.
I just don’t understand why someone else has the right to deny another person’s right to marriage. Why would you care?
If the issue is that due to your religious beliefs these couples should not have a “marriage”, would you be okay with them having a “civil union” that is held to the same standard as a marriage?
[/quote]
Sorry, but I work daily with annuities and financial insturments, JTWRS are not limited to married couples . . . . my point was - if there are limitations to civil unions that are adversely affecting gay couples - fix the civil union law.
Marriage for all of human history has been clearly and easily defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman - thousands and thousands of years. It is a standard, it is the norm.
it has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with human existence. It is an anthropological constant.
Homosexual relationships are and always have been an abberational behavior. Since they are not the norm and have never been a standard, they deserve a classification commiserate with their behavior - something outside of the normal standard.[/quote]
It’s great that your state allows non-married couples to enter into Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship, that is not the case in California.
You are okay with civil union, just not marriage?
In history there have been norms that have changed because society has changed. Societal mores do change. Why can’t this one change?
[/quote]
yeah, Cali and NY have some screwed financial rules for being so “progressive” minded . . .
Yep - perfectly fine with civil unions
This is far beyond a societal issue - it goes to the heart of soul of defining the meaning and identity of humanity. And anytime we venture into any deeper of a discussion on the values, mores, morality, spirituality, etc issues surrounding theidea, then the divisiveness of this issue only expands and increases. PC mentalities will not soften or improve the views on the issue, so it is best to find the working compromise that is a win/win rather than forcing the issue to the point that there are winners and losers in the cultural debate.
What do gay couples actually want? the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by the traditional married couple. what do those opposed to the idea of gay marriage want? for the institution of marriage to remain defined as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman.
what is the the win/win - civil unions for same-sex couples . . . they can have the ceremonies, the rights, the freedoms and live happily ever after. Those opposed can hold on to the tradition of monogamous heterosexual marriage. NO ONE LOSES!