California Prop 8

[bodecea]

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

Too bad...the Supreme Court said it is. And as for Procreation...are you saying that Marriage should be denied to those who cannot or will not procreate?

I didnt say it, the court did. read thier whole statement. Why would marriage be vital for "existance and survival" unless they meant procreation? Or do you just want to cherry pick the first part?

Again, if it is a "fundemental right" then what makes our incest laws and polygamy/bigamy laws legal?

So you think the Supreme Court is saying that marriage is for procreation?

 

[martybegan]

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

"I disagree it is a fundemental right."

this statement says volumes. with that argument i could stop anyone from getting married for any reason if i had the power. i could argue an old man and a young women shouldnt get married.

it has also already been ruled in a court of law that marriage is not a requirement for child bearing or child raising anymore. you can have a child out of wedlock, as a single parent you can adopt children. the procreation argument that is made is actually a better argument for outlawing divorce, rather than restricting marriage.

if you read back in the thread i make that argument that "while i dont necessarily agree with polygamy or incestuous marriage, there could be a legal argument for them basic upon discrimination"

the argument of bestiality and inanimate objects makes me laugh every time i hear it. seeing as how animals and inanimate object are unable to provide consent to marry as well. you can allow people to sue on this basis, but they will also be thrown out of court. just because you morally disagree with something doesnt necessarily make it illegal.

you have to be able to look at the legal facts and take your emotions out of the equation in order to be objective.

So why is consent required for a fundemental right? If it is so fundemental then why should even that stop it? Can't a blow up doll provide implied consent?

I have no emotions in this, I have no dog in this hunt. So just because I disagree with you it makes me all emotional? The funny thing is that the pro same sex marriage argument is the emotional one, the one that plays to issues of love, fairness, etc.

This has been a fun thread. I may pop back in in the next few days, but right now I am disapearring for 2 days to play World of Warcraft Catalysm. The Nerd-cation commences.

and its time for....

 

[bodecea]

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

"I disagree it is a fundemental right."

this statement says volumes. with that argument i could stop anyone from getting married for any reason if i had the power. i could argue an old man and a young women shouldnt get married.

it has also already been ruled in a court of law that marriage is not a requirement for child bearing or child raising anymore. you can have a child out of wedlock, as a single parent you can adopt children. the procreation argument that is made is actually a better argument for outlawing divorce, rather than restricting marriage.

if you read back in the thread i make that argument that "while i dont necessarily agree with polygamy or incestuous marriage, there could be a legal argument for them basic upon discrimination"

the argument of bestiality and inanimate objects makes me laugh every time i hear it. seeing as how animals and inanimate object are unable to provide consent to marry as well. you can allow people to sue on this basis, but they will also be thrown out of court. just because you morally disagree with something doesnt necessarily make it illegal.

you have to be able to look at the legal facts and take your emotions out of the equation in order to be objective.

So why is consent required for a fundemental right? If it is so fundemental then why should even that stop it? Can't a blow up doll provide implied consent?

I have no emotions in this, I have no dog in this hunt. So just because I disagree with you it makes me all emotional? The funny thing is that the pro same sex marriage argument is the emotional one, the one that plays to issues of love, fairness, etc.

This has been a fun thread. I may pop back in in the next few days, but right now I am disapearring for 2 days to play World of Warcraft Catalysm. The Nerd-cation commences.

and its time for....

Um...yes.

BTW...what realm....I still don't have my Collector's Edition from Amazon so I'm stuck watching the rest of my guild surpass me....

 

[Common Sense]

So why is consent required for a fundemental right? If it is so fundemental then why should even that stop it? Can't a blow up doll provide implied consent?

I have no emotions in this, I have no dog in this hunt. So just because I disagree with you it makes me all emotional? The funny thing is that the pro same sex marriage argument is the emotional one, the one that plays to issues of love, fairness, etc.

This has been a fun thread. I may pop back in in the next few days, but right now I am disapearring for 2 days to play World of Warcraft Catalysm. The Nerd-cation commences.

and its time for....

cut and run just because you cant defend your opinion vs. what is law. typical

 

[bodecea]

So why is consent required for a fundemental right? If it is so fundemental then why should even that stop it? Can't a blow up doll provide implied consent?

I have no emotions in this, I have no dog in this hunt. So just because I disagree with you it makes me all emotional? The funny thing is that the pro same sex marriage argument is the emotional one, the one that plays to issues of love, fairness, etc.

This has been a fun thread. I may pop back in in the next few days, but right now I am disapearring for 2 days to play World of Warcraft Catalysm. The Nerd-cation commences.

and its time for....

cut and run just because you cant defend your opinion vs. what is law. typical

Excuse me, WoW Catalysm is priority.....if I had my copy I wouldn't be here either.

 

[Common Sense]

So why is consent required for a fundemental right? If it is so fundemental then why should even that stop it? Can't a blow up doll provide implied consent?

I have no emotions in this, I have no dog in this hunt. So just because I disagree with you it makes me all emotional? The funny thing is that the pro same sex marriage argument is the emotional one, the one that plays to issues of love, fairness, etc.

This has been a fun thread. I may pop back in in the next few days, but right now I am disapearring for 2 days to play World of Warcraft Catalysm. The Nerd-cation commences.

and its time for....

cut and run just because you cant defend your opinion vs. what is law. typical

Excuse me, WoW Catalysm is priority.....if I had my copy I wouldn't be here either.

that guy def isnt getting laid in the near future

 

[Montrovant]

Um...yes.

BTW...what realm....I still don't have my Collector's Edition from Amazon so I'm stuck watching the rest of my guild surpass me....

I'm in the same boat! And they made it so easy to get to 85, the whole guild might have at least 1 85 each before I start levelling

I have 80s on Whisperwind, Alterac Mountains and Shattered Halls, if you care.

As far as the actual content of the thread, I'll admit it, I have no comment

 

[George Costanza]

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

The thing that bothers me about apparantly well reasoned arguments such as this is that, underneath it all, the argument is not about "precendent," "constitutionality" or "legality" or whatever other seemingly plausable platform is being used to debate the issue. Underneath it all, the only thing it is about is prejudice - prejudice against gay people. That is ALL this whole thing is about.

I don't know of any people who are tolerant of the gay lifestyle, who are opposed to gay marriage. I know of many people who hate gays. Guess what - none of them favor gay marriage.

What can we conclude from that? As I said before - there is a not-so-hidden agenda behind the anti-gay marriage movement. All you have to do is remove "marriage" from the phrase, "anti-gay marriage movement," to see what that hidden agenda is.

 

[Trajan]

Legal marriage and all the rights, privileges, and protections there in. Gender discrimination.

all the rights, privileges, and protections there in.

such as?

Google legal marriage rights...better yet, let me do it for you:

Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo

excellent, thank you.

from your first link-

Tax Benefits

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

California is pretty much out in front on many of these items.

i don't have an issue with any of them....I was under the impression that civil unions conferred many of these rights, so in the end I think the feds need to as well. *shrugs*.

 

[Common Sense]

The thing that bothers me about apparantly well reasoned arguments such as this is that, underneath it all, the argument is not about "precendent," "constitutionality" or "legality" or whatever other seemingly plausable platform is being used to debate the issue. Underneath it all, the only thing it is about is prejudice - prejudice against gay people. That is ALL this whole thing is about.

I don't know of any people who are tolerant of the gay lifestyle, who are opposed to gay marriage. I know of many people who hate gays. Guess what - none of them favor gay marriage.

What can we conclude from that? As I said before - there is a not-so-hidden agenda behind the anti-gay marriage movement. All you have to do is remove "marriage" from the phrase, "anti-gay marriage movement," to see what that hidden agenda is.

well i tried in the case to concentrate solely on the legal aspect of this. i dont think in any post i every said i am either tolerant or intolerant of the gay lifestyle, or did i push an individual to be. i concentrated on the legality of depriving a group of what had already been determined to be a "fundamental right" by the supreme court.

it is extremely interesting though to see the wild arguments that get brought up such as marrying and animal or inanimate object. that marriage is for child bearing and raising. the anatomy argument, and then obviously the religious one as well. yet most of if not all of these have been addressed in a court of law, and when one gets mentioned it seems to be overlooked or ignored.

now not being a lawyer, i can only give my opinion here. but i believe that the appeals court will once again rule that prop 8 is in fact illegal because of the simple fact that it deprives an minority of a fundamental right. just the same way slavery was abolished, womens rights were recognized and the ban on interracial marriage was struck down

 

[Common Sense]

all the rights, privileges, and protections there in.

such as?

Google legal marriage rights...better yet, let me do it for you:

Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo

excellent, thank you.

from your first link-

Tax Benefits

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

California is pretty much out in front on many of these items.

i don't have an issue with any of them....I was under the impression that civil unions conferred many of these rights, so in the end I think the feds need to as well. *shrugs*.

what would you think of disallowing straight people to marry in favor of civil unions? would that be fair?

 

[Trajan]

Google legal marriage rights...better yet, let me do it for you:

Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo

excellent, thank you.

from your first link-

Tax Benefits

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

California is pretty much out in front on many of these items.

i don't have an issue with any of them....I was under the impression that civil unions conferred many of these rights, so in the end I think the feds need to as well. *shrugs*.

what would you think of disallowing straight people to marry in favor of civil unions? would that be fair?

they apparently have rights that they would enjoy get in a civil union, so why would they want to?

 

[bodecea]

Um...yes.

BTW...what realm....I still don't have my Collector's Edition from Amazon so I'm stuck watching the rest of my guild surpass me....

I'm in the same boat! And they made it so easy to get to 85, the whole guild might have at least 1 85 each before I start levelling

I have 80s on Whisperwind, Alterac Mountains and Shattered Halls, if you care.

As far as the actual content of the thread, I'll admit it, I have no comment

I'm in Proudmore, in one of the largest LGBT guilds in WoW....woot!

 

[Cecilie1200]

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

The thing that bothers me about apparantly well reasoned arguments such as this is that, underneath it all, the argument is not about "precendent," "constitutionality" or "legality" or whatever other seemingly plausable platform is being used to debate the issue. Underneath it all, the only thing it is about is prejudice - prejudice against gay people. That is ALL this whole thing is about.

Translation: I can't answer any of your arguments, so I'm just going to cavalierly dismiss them and assume that the only reason anyone could ever disagree with me is because they're "mean".

I don't know of any people who are tolerant of the gay lifestyle, who are opposed to gay marriage. I know of many people who hate gays. Guess what - none of them favor gay marriage.

Then you don't listen very well (BIG surprise). I'd bet money that I have more friends in and spend more time around the GLBT community than you do, and I see no reason why that has to translate into agreeing with every iota of their political agenda. Of course, I also don't think of it as "being tolerant" of them, since I find the notion of "tolerating" someone's private life, as though it's any of my business, to be rather condescending.

What can we conclude from that? As I said before - there is a not-so-hidden agenda behind the anti-gay marriage movement. All you have to do is remove "marriage" from the phrase, "anti-gay marriage movement," to see what that hidden agenda is.

What I conclude from it is that you have a very small, restrictive range of contacts, with very little real communication with anyone who doesn't fit your tiny little worldview, and you imagine your personal opinion to encompass the entire universe.

 

[Common Sense]

im curious to know what this so called "radical" gay agenda is? it seems to me that they are simply trying to get equal treatment under the law. whats radical about that?

 

[Common Sense]

what would you think of disallowing straight people to marry in favor of civil unions? would that be fair?

they apparently have rights that they would enjoy get in a civil union, so why would they want to?

what does this sentence every mean?

you also never answered the questions about the fairness of making straight people get civil unions instead of letting them get married.